Homosexual Marriages

[Newscaster]

For quite a while now, a heated debate has been underway on the subject of same sex marriage.

Civils rightsd laws have been quotes time and time again and passages of the bible have also been spotlighted. And the main allegation against same sex marriage is...its not normal and will destroy our time honored institution of marriage.

But, you know, no one has adequately answered the question......how will gay marriages destroy straight marriages? Having been a reporter for almost half a century, I do not recall a single story in which a man and woman got a divorce because somewhere in this great wide country of ours, two gay guys wed. I also have yet to hear of plans for a straight marriage being cancelled over the issue. I have also apparantly missed the attempts by straight people to change any rules regarding marriage. Oh, they sure have added rules or tried to, but I dont think those attempts had anything to do with marriage, it had to do with homophobia, pure and simple.

So please, someone spell it out clearly...HOW WILL HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE DESTROY THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE? and please, I would apprerciate your thoughts rather than biblical quotes or the quotes of some fire and brimstore preacher. I am asking you, not them. Thanks.

[longjonsilver]

Although I agree with you, I will play the devil's advocate for a moment to keep things interesting.

The problem with allowing homosexual marriage is that it is the whole slippery slope downwards. Today we have homosexuals crying for marriage but if granted, then tomarrow it will be the hard core Mormons begging for polygamy to be legalized. Any argument to support gay marriage can also be applied to polygamy making it neccesary for polygamy to be legalized. This creates an out of control sprial downwards with mariage being twisted and bent to fit everyone's wants rather than standing steadfast to the tradition is has caried throughout American history.

But now to my actual beliefs. To further elaborate your point. In this nation we have always tried to stick with granting rights by the standard that one mans rights extend to where another mans begins. Gay marriage is a completly consential act between to individuals effecting no one in a negative way. It is not the place of the government to socially engenieer its peoples to be what it wants. If there isn't victim, then it isn't a crime.

[Newscaster]

Actually, polygamy witin the Mormon Church is a thing of the past. They gave that up years ago. Its only small breakaway sects that still practice it and they are in a sharp minority.
Also, I dont think that homosexual marriage will lead to people marrying their dogs or horses. Do you?

But you are right, government should basically stay out of the marriage arena except where it involves recording keeping. But telling someone who they may or may not marry reminds me of that evil cult...the Moonies where the Rev Sun Myung Moon every once in a while, stages mass marriages when men are assigned a wife that they never met abd dont meet until the wedding day. Rev Moon believes himself to be the second coming of a messiah so you can possibly understand why he thinks he has the right to control even marriage.

[Labrocca]

I prefer not to see it happen however I think it will. It's just goes in line with how this country works and the establishing of rights for people once they decide to fuss. I just wonder when the siblings that want to be married will want rights too. How about brother marrying brother? Yeah that sounds like a court case in 30 years.

[AlonzoMourning23]

There's a little problem with the polygamy argument you made. No one's sexual preference requires them to be with multiple women (or men) if they are to form sexual and loving emotional bonds, unlike the case of a heterosexual or a homosexual. No one gets up and say "I have to marry 9 women".

[bobbylien]

I prefer not to see it happen however I think it will.

Why does it bother you?
Give it to them so they shut up. The more you fight them, the louder they will become. Let them have gay marriage, it doesn't affect ANY one of us AT ALL.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. I say this Liberal view on life in America is leading our Nation into Civil War.
2. Firstly, gays being given legal marriage rights hurts everyone.
3. Its morally bankrupt!
4. The more we allow it, the more other freaks will want the right to leave their sheep their fortune after they've died.
5. Or whatever thing they married.
6. The basic legal ramifications harm any Country for where its legal.
7. And on top of its, its wrong. Flat out wrong.
8. Giving gays this much credence is bad as well.
9. For the rest of us normal people, to allow them to be like us, *married*, we cheapen our selves for their no account lives they have chosen to live.
10. This they can not escape.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[AlonzoMourning23]

How does allowing consenting adults to marry harm your relationship? Your morals are your morals, do you think everyone needs to accept identical morals as you? In another post you stated you love the diversity of this land, and here you are condemning people for wanting to live their life according to their own morals that don't harm anyone. They're not harming children, animals etc. They're not entering into sexual relationships with beings that cannot consent.

The same slippery slope logic of bestiality and pedophilia was previously used against interracial marriage and was equally baseless.

[longjonsilver]

chesswarsnow you've got to understand the power of the government and stop proliferating it to a superfluous level. Government was created for one reason and one reason only, and its individuals such as your self which have sent it out of control through time. The only position and power the government deserves is the duty to prevent its citizens rights from being infringed upon. Sadly your list of 10 reasons on why gays should not get married is flawed in 10 ways. Just as many before have said, the actions of two consenting adults choosing to bond in a way that will benefit them financialy, has absolutly no effect on you. If there is no victim then the government has no place in the matter. If you are a republican (which is what you sound like), then when it comes to the fiscal area of the government you believe it is best to keep the government as little as possible. The same mentality should abide to social issues. Social engineering is a corrupt fashion that governments use to shape there people to a form that they desire, rather than allowing individuals to have there own autonomy. This country was created as a means of escaping persecution, so that those immigrating here could have the freedom to do as they choose as long as they harmed no others. We need to return to our founding beliefs that made this country so great.

Here is a response to the flaws in your list:
1. Gay marriage is not an issue to send the country to civil war, however if hard core hold outs such as yourself would come around the country would be fine.
2. You can't claim that it "hurts everyone" when you haven't even shown how it hurts anyone.
3. Who are you to decide the morals of other individuals, and by what guidelines are you using to do this. Certainly not the Bible I hope.
4. Excuse me but i dont understand your sheep phraseology.
5. Once again.
6. Again you can't recklessly claim that it harms the country without showing how.
7. Refer to 3.
8. How do homosexuals harm the country. You've got to learn to follow a claim with reasoning.
9. Sadly, the fact that you despise a group of people and feel cheapend by the knowing of something that they do, is your own problem, not the governments.
10. ??

[Newscaster]

Its obvious Chesswarsnow is a homophobe nit I wonder if he has ever considered just what homosexuakls contribute to this country.

You wear the clothes they design. You enjoy the art they create and that includes, painting, sculpture, music, song, dance and acting.

You read their books, poetry and you even live in the homes they design.

Whether you know it or not, they protect you by being members of the United States military, local police departments and they are also firemen. They pay their taxes just like you do. They adopt children so the kids will not grow up alone and yes, they also have natural children. Being gay does not impair their reproductive abilities.

They become doctors, dentists, lawyers, engineers, just like those people you consider "normal".

In fact there is only one difference between them and the rest of us and thats their choice of partners. But when they do choose a partner, they do it on the same basis as we do when choosing a mate...love.
And consider this, a greater percentage of them stay together with their mates than we stay with ours. They dont have a fifty percent divorce rate like we do.

In all my years, I have worked alongside a great many homosexual men and women and almost without exception, I found them to be an extraordinary group of people. Several have become close friends.

Talented, helpful, friendly and reliable. Just the same as any of your so-called "normal" people.

All they want is the right to the same things that marriage brings to us.
And they want to be free of epithets such as you refer to them with. Names such as freaks, fags, and all the rest. I am sure you know those names better than I.

Chesswarsnow, the world has passed you by. This is the 21st century. You are still living back in the deep south in the 18 hundreds. And you are missing a great deal by doing so.

[EXDIA53]

The gay marriage opponents continuously bring up "morality" in their arguments.Â*Â*Their morality comes from conservative protestant (or R.C.) Christianity, which last time I noticed was defined as a religion. It is not the function of the constitution or the federal government to enforce religious morality.
As for polygamy, I think that could be defended on constitutional grounds, as long as it involved consent.Â*Â*The Mormons gave up polygamy for statehood for Utah over a hundred years ago.Â*Â*Would they switch back if it were legal?Â*Â*I don't care.Â*Â*I wouldn't do it, but I won't condemn it.
There is a trend among some in the country now to argue any political and social position by quoting the Bible.Â*Â*Jefferson's "wall of separation" would prevent any political/judicial act on the basis of the Bible, Torah, Koran, etc.Â*Â*There is a difference between a nation made up of and founded by (mostly) Christians, and a "Christian" nation.Â*Â* The "nation" must be secular, or the constitution is violated.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But I would rather have the Archie Bunker reality than allows these homosexuals to marry.
2. There's no good in allowings dees homosexuals to be married like regular folks does.
3. Its a decay of our moral fabrics.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[longjonsilver]

Chesswarsnow I want to find a less offensive term to describe your reasoning, but it is purely ignorance. But regardless, look to your own reasoning and you can still conclude that gay marriage should be legalized. In your second contention you said that there was no good in allowing "fags" to be married. I disagree, however it doesnt matter. The fact is that there is no bad in allowing gays to marry, and that is the sole reason on why it should be legalized. Maybe if you yourself were to marry someone of the same gender it would violate your own morals, but the acts of others without relation to you, has no consequence on your daily life. You may believe what they do is wrong but if there is no interferece on your life, then it is not your place to confine others to a lifestyle that you wish to live.

[Newscaster]

+++++++cHESSWARSNOW WRITES:
1. But I would rather have the Archie Bunker reality than allows these homosexuals to marry.
2. There's no good in allowings dees homosexuals to be married like regular folks does.
3. Its a decay of our moral fabrics.

******

I wonder if Chess understands that Archie Bunker was created by an ultra-liberal television producer to point out the indiocy of the Archie Bunker thought processes. That Archie was the antithesis of everything considered American.

2. Chess says allowing gays to marry is not good. How about the mere fact that two men or two women are pledging their love for each other in a permanant arrangement, just as straight people do and that this would negate the argument that all gay want to do is to recruit new members into the homosexual world.

3. Chess says this would be a decaying of our moral fabric. Chess, the American moral fabric contains the idea that all people regardless or who or what they are, deserve to be treated equally with love and fairness. It does not in any way shape manner or form indicate that one group is better than another. If you cannot treat you fellow American and your fellow human with such fairness, then it is you sir who is ripping apart our moral fabric.

People like Chess always seem to point to the mythical idea that gays have an agenda. Well, yes they do but Chess, you and I are not targets of that agenda. Their agenda is achieving equality as citizens with all the perks and benefits that you and I enjoy.

Chess, try to answer this seriously.........are you afraid you are gay?

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But no I am not gay.
2. The Gay agenda wants power.
3. They want to be President, with Gay Parties.
4. They want Gay pride day in Washington DC. every Thursday.
5. They want schools to teach that Gays are moral People.
6. They want, me to stfu.
7. Its time the Gays go back into the closet.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Newscaster]

Chess, after this latest post by you, I have nothing more to say.

Have a nide day.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But its been brought to my attention I was a little out of line when describing the Gays using the word f_g, in this thread this isn't acceptable here on DF, and I should of known better, please accept my apologies for this language, if you took it personally, I normally don't use that tone.
2. I will try to contain this kind of banter in the future.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[bobbylien]

Sorry bout that,

1. But no I am not gay.
2. The Gay agenda wants power.
3. They want to be President, with Gay Parties.
4. They want Gay pride day in Washington DC. every Thursday.
5. They want schools to teach that Gays are moral People.
6. They want, me to stfu.
7. Its time the Gays go back into the closet.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

So in other words you have no proof or anything to prove your side? All you have are more accusations?

[Labrocca]

He has his beliefs. It's his opinion. If the people vote for elected officials that don't want gay marriage...guess what..no gay marriage. Allowing gays to marry just doesn't sit well with me. It sort of pokes fun at marriage as an institution for family.

Husband
Wife
Children

That's a family.

Dad
Dad (not really dad)
Mom
Mom (not really mom)

That's not a family. That's an orgy.

My wife has a good friend with 2 kids in a gay married relationship. The father of course is gay with a gay boyfriend. I can imagine how liberal these kids will grow up being taught that any sexually deviant behavior is acceptable.

This is like how in the 60's everyone smoked pot so that when the 80's came and these people had kids they couldn't tell them to not do drugs.

F'it..I am pretty sure that gays will get this right passed. So be it.

[longjonsilver]

There is a difference between allowing gays to marry and allowing gays to adopt or raise children. However I would immagine that a home with gay parents would be preferable to a government run orphanage, where children grow without any parents. But I do see how gays raising children provides a situational shift from solely allowing gays to marry, because adoption has an effect on others than the gay couple.
Also, another fact that we all seem to over look is the tax benefits of being married. Gays are not asking for the right to get married so they can poke fun at something you believe to be sacred, they just desire the same tax benefits that hertosexual married couples recieve.

[Newscaster]

Since you bring up the term "family" in relation to gay marriage and claim it is not a family but an orgy, I thought you might like to see that the word FAMILY has a who bunch of meanings, all perfectly valid, and while the marriage of a man and a women may be part of the first definition, take a close look at the others. Notice the word ORGY is never mentioned. Nor is morality, immorality or sinful.

fam·i·ly (fm-l, fml) KEY

NOUN:
pl. fam·i·lies

1. A fundamental social group in society typically consisting of one or two parents and their children.
2. Two or more people who share goals and values, have long-term commitments to one another, and reside usually in the same dwelling place.
3. All the members of a household under one roof.
4. A group of persons sharing common ancestry. See Usage Note at collective noun.
5. Lineage, especially distinguished lineage.
6. A locally independent organized crime unit, as of the Cosa Nostra.
7. A group of like things; a class.
8. A group of individuals derived from a common stock: the family of human beings.
9. Biology A taxonomic category of related organisms ranking below an order and above a genus. A family usually consists of several genera.
10. Linguistics A group of languages descended from the same parent language, such as the Indo-European language family.
11. Mathematics A set of functions or surfaces that can be generated by varying the parameters of a general equation.
12. Chemistry A group of elements with similar chemical properties.
13. Chemistry A vertical column in the periodic table of elements.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Labrocca, studies have shown no distinction between children raised by homosexuals or heterosexuals, and practicing homosexuality is not harmful. And no one ever needs drugs to live a happy, healthy life. The comparison to drugs doesn't make sense. A better example would be the overwhelming opposition once held against interracial marriage, and the arguments often mimic each other. Unnatural, harms society and children, against god etc.

Though I'm very hesitant about leaving issues of civil rights up to the majority. Democracy should protect minority rights, and that often means overruling the majority. The majority has a very poor record on civil rights historically, and the minority shouldn't have to wait around for the majority to decide they're equal.

[longjonsilver]

Im not sure alonzo if studies have shown that children are the same regardless of wether the parents are homosexual or hertosexual. It would make since if they werent when you analyze it logically. Humans biologically are supposed to be raised with a father and a mother figure, however homosexual parents cannot provide both, just as a single parent can not provide both and conseqently have been shown to not raise children as well as heterosexual parents. I do agree with you on the fact that it is dangerous to allow the majority to decide the civil rights of all, and therefore feel that it is safe to grant rights based on one standard. One man's rights extend to where another man's begins. Seeing that homosexuals joining together tramples in no way on my personal rights, then I am in complete agreement with legalization.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Im not sure alonzo if studies have shown that children are the same regardless of wether the parents are homosexual or hertosexual.Â*Â*It would make since if they werent when you analyze it logically.Â*Â*Humans biologically are supposed to be raised with a father and a mother figure, however homosexual parents cannot provide both, just as a single parent can not provide both and conseqently have been shown to not raise children as well as heterosexual parents.Â*Â*I do agree with you on the fact that it is dangerous to allow the majority to decide the civil rights of all, and therefore feel that it is safe to grant rights based on one standard.Â*Â*One man's rights extend to where another man's begins.Â*Â*Seeing that homosexuals joining together tramples in no way on my personal rights, then I am in complete agreement with legalization.


I did a paper on same sex adoption last semester. And studies do not show a difference in gender identity, sexual orientation, relations with peers, mental health etc.

American Academy of Pediatrics:
A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children’s optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes......

However, the weight of evidence gathered during several decades using diverse samples and methodologies is persuasive in demonstrating that there is no systematic difference between gay and nongay parents in emotional health, parenting skills, and attitudes toward parenting. No data have pointed to any risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents.

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;109/2/341?fulltext=homosexuality&searchid=QID_NOT_SET

The american Psychiatric association concluded the same:

http://www.psych.org/news_room/press_releases/adoption_coparenting121802.pdf

And so did the american psychological association:

As the social visibility and legal status of lesbian and gay parents has increased, three major concerns about the influence of lesbian and gay parents on children have been often voiced (Falk, 1994; Patterson, Fulcher & Wainright, 2002). One is that the children of lesbian and gay parents will experience more difficulties in the area of sexual identity than children of heterosexual parents. For instance, one such concern is that children brought up by lesbian mothers or gay fathers will show disturbances in gender identity and/or in gender role behavior. A second category of concerns involves aspects of children's personal development other than sexual identity. For example, some observers have expressed fears that children in the custody of gay or lesbian parents would be more vulnerable to mental breakdown, would exhibit more adjustment difficulties and behavior problems, or would be less psychologically healthy than other children. A third category of concerns is that children of lesbian and gay parents will experience difficulty in social relationships. For example, some observers have expressed concern that children living with lesbian mothers or gay fathers will be stigmatized, teased, or otherwise victimized by peers. Another common fear is that children living with gay or lesbian parents will be more likely to be sexually abused by the parent or by the parent's friends or acquaintances.

Results of social science research have failed to confirm any of these concerns about children of lesbian and gay parents (Patterson, 2000, 2004a; Perrin, 2002; Tasker, 1999). Research suggests that sexual identities (including gender identity, gender-role behavior, and sexual orientation) develop in much the same ways among children of lesbian mothers as they do among children of heterosexual parents (Patterson, 2004a). Studies of other aspects of personal development (including personality, self-concept, and conduct) similarly reveal few differences between children of lesbian mothers and children of heterosexual parents (Perrin, 2002; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001; Tasker, 1999). However, few data regarding these concerns are available for children of gay fathers (Patterson, 2004b). Evidence also suggests that children of lesbian and gay parents have normal social relationships with peers and adults (Patterson, 2000, 2004a; Perrin, 2002; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001; Tasker, 1999; Tasker & Golombok, 1997). The picture that emerges from research is one of general engagement in social life with peers, parents, family members, and friends. Fears about children of lesbian or gay parents being sexually abused by adults, ostracized by peers, or isolated in single-sex lesbian or gay communities have received no scientific support. Overall, results of research suggest that the development, adjustment, and well-being of children with lesbian and gay parents do not differ markedly from that of children with heterosexual parents.Â*Â*

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/parents.html



Also studies showed that single parents, as a whole, do not do as well, and there are various reasons (stress of being a single parent being one). But it's not a blanket statement where that's always the case. Quality of time spent is much more important than quantity. But, if a single parent can provide a stable situation, is not facing any significant stress, and provides quality time with his/her children, then a second parent isn't a real concern. The main issue in quality of parents is whether the parent(s) are happy, as this effects the way they parent their children.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But there's no way I believe that a person that has two men or two women as parents will be normal when they grow up.
2. In my great understanding of the human mind, these children will be scared for life.
3. It would be better for some if they were raised in an orphanage.
4. Or for that matter a pack of wolves.
5. The total shame that that child would have to bare is horrendous.
6. This amount of weight crashing down on the child will cause many to suicide out, instead of carrying the shame.
7. In every part of the child's future they have to deal with this shame, like first girl friend, meet my parents, two guys/gals. Oh boy.
8. To sanction this kind of union is demoralizing to the children in every way.
9. Little by little it sucks the life out of the children, soon they just die from being so drained, with a happy suicide.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[longjonsilver]

I dont know. I see your studies from credible sources but I have definatly seen studies that show other wise. You can't argue that a mother and father play different roles in parenting, one of which will be lost in a homosexual marriage. But regardless of who is better the problem that I have is that many of these children cannot choose whether or not to be raised in a homosexual family or not, and to just assume that they will not mind is doing a diservice to the children. However, I think it is safe to assume that gays are in no doubt a better parent than the government. So if it were up to me I would allow for gay adoption on top of gay marriage, as long as hertosexual couples are first on the list to recieve an adoption.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Well, I don't expect chess to allow evidence to penetrate his shield of bigotry. I think some study, any study, would pick up the devestating effects predicted by you, like suicide, severe depression etc. Do you know of one?

But long when I did a report I spent hours trying to find even a shred of evidence, a biased study, a fraudulent study etc. and I found nothing. I asked 2 of my psychology professors, and they knew nothing. The american academy of pediatrics stated that point in the above quote: "No data have pointed to any risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents".

There are many poorly conducted studies on homosexuality. For example, one group publishes many studies showing homosexuals molest a high number of children, but they only find those results on a disproven assumption. They assume that all those who molest male children, and are male, are homosexual, when in fact (according to other studies conducted) most are heterosexual or uninterested in adult sexual relations. The sex preferred by child molestors is often unrelated to adult orientation. Yet (at least as of 4 months ago) even those groups have no studies indicating otherwise here.

Yes there are some minor differences in how the sexes tend to parent, but it's minor. The differences seen in relationships are primarily due to the expectations of society and the distinction between primary and secondary caregivers. The effects are not significant and being raised by a male or female primary caregiver does not put you at a disadvantage.

[longjonsilver]

Alright Alonzo I found one pretty weak source:
http://shakinandshinin.org/HomosexualParenting.html

After viewing all the studies that said homo and heterosexual parenting were equal, I think I might concede defeat in believing that heterosexual parents raised a better child. I do completly agree with allowing gays to adopt, however I still believe that if it comes down to homo or heterosexual parents, the heterosexual parents should be granted the child before the homosexual parents.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But why would the Liberals want to do a study on why teenagers of Gay parents commit suicide so often?
2. They are the only ones doing all these studies.
3. If they did a study like this then they wouldn't be Liberals.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[longjonsilver]

Im sure those who do not want homosexuals to get married have tried to do a study showing that homosexual parents are not good for children, yet I looked for a credible source displaying this message and I really couldnt find one. Chesswars you have to be able to agree that gay parents are better than a government orphanage with no parents.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But No.
2. Its far to risky, it will always bring shame to the child.
3. And unless the child gets counseling from age 8 they will for sure learn to blame themselves that his/her parents are gay men/women.
4. This is how children internalize things, they blame themselves, always.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[longjonsilver]

Im not sure why I keep responding to you Chesswars because we really dont seem to be getting too far. But if children always blame themseleves, then if they were in an orphanage wouldn't they feel responsible for the fact that there parents gave them up for adoption? Having a feeling of guilt, that maybe they were not a good child. No matter what the situation, children filtered through orphanages are always going to have problems. The only difference is when the children experience the problems that you speak of, they will have caring parents to comfort them through the process, whereas those who feel guilt while in the orphanage have nothing other than the government to rely on.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But I am sure that in an orphanage that there are many caring and loving people in charge in them.
2. Straight people.
3. Straight people who care, and help these kids.
4. Where at least they have normal people guiding them.
5. With knowledge of how to counsel them, and support them in their paths.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[rebel farmer]

chesswars, if you're against gay marriage, don't marry a dude.problem solved. but it will not make any difference in society as a whole if gay marriage were legal i know it chaps your ass, but there is a ton of proof out there that people are born gay. it ain't a choice, it ain't an abnormality it ain't a defect it ain't a sin, and even though you don;t allow the facts to get in the way of your argument, a kid raised by same sex parents is no more likely to be gay than anyone else. as for the homosexual agenda, the only agenda the gay people i know have is the same as mine and probably yours. a good job, a nice home, a good education for the kids, healthcare and food, cleaning the house, shopping, laundry, keeping the cars running, getting the kids to ball practice and school on time, and all of this w/o going nuts. that's the only gay agenda i'ver heard of. pretty damn subvervise ain't it?

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But what I want is to know when I sleep at night that gay people do not have the same rights as straight people.
2. I want to live in a Country that is Gawd based.
3. I want to live, work, and sleep in a Nation that honors good people and marginalizes immoral people.
4. I want to live, work and know that only Straight people are allowed to enter into the *Sacrament of Marriage.*
5. I want those who choose to couple up with the same sex to be outside of my reality, as they should be.
6. Next group of people who will want to be married is incest marriages, like a Father marrying his own daughters.
6. a) And Mothers marrying their own sons.
7. Then there multiple wives and husbands.
8. Also under age girls being married off at 6 years old.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[longjonsilver]

Chesswars there is a huge difference between nonconsenting underaged marriages and two consenting adult homosexuals. Judging by all the things that you want in a country, my best advice for you is to move somewhere else. This is not a country created as a heaven for Christianity and all its ideals. There is a difference between a country created for Chirstianity and a contry created by Christianity. It is not the place of the government to use religious texts to create morals to place on all its peoples.

[Newscaster]

I said I was going to back away from this debate but Chessnows latest posting was just too much. Fathers marrying daughters? Mother's marrying sons? Come on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Chess has got to be pulling everyone's leg. He cannot possibly believe that nonsense. Did he ever consider that to MARRY someone, you need a minister, rabbi, priest, judge or justice of the peace or a ship's captain.
Where will he get one that will marry mom and son or dad and daughter?

The fact remains........homosexuality is NOT a choice. It is either genetic or biological.

As far as what is written in the bible......as far back as three thousand years ago, when the Torah was written, the word homosexual did not exist, the word gay had a totally different meaning and the level of knowledge about same sex attraction was just about zero. But the writers may certainly have cringed at the thought of that type of activity and so, even though they didnt know squat about it, they wrote against it.

Lets hope were are smarter today.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But immoral marriages come in all shapes and sizes.
2. Why would you allow Gays to marry but not some Father and Daughter couple?
3. Where's that ol Liberal stance?
4. Will if hurt you to allow these marriages directly?
4. a) And how so if you think it can?
5. Its not in your house is it?
6. Don't they get to be Free too?
7. Where's the liberty in not allowing these consenting adults to do as they wish?
8. See where this could be heading?
9. It would go down many immoral paths.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[rebel farmer]

cheswars, seems like you're awfully damn worried about what everyone else is doing. whatever happened to liberty for all? maybe you need to move to an island or sumpin?

[AlonzoMourning23]

Sorry bout that,

1. But what I want is to know when I sleep at night that gay people do not have the same rights as straight people.


You probably should go find Fred Phelps, he'd welcome a person like you.

[CheesyMuslim]

cheswars, seems like you're awfully damn worried about what everyone else is doing. whatever happened to liberty for all? maybe you need to move to an island or sumpin?


Sorry bout that,

1. But I have already bought a homestead on an Island.
2. But am not ready to retire, thanks.
3. Who the hell is Fred Phelps?

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Newscaster]

Chesswars, consider this.......
no one has spoken up in defense of your position on this subject. Thats the way it also is natrionwide. The country is seeing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation as being immoral, cruel and downright unfair and nasty.

Homosexual marriage is coming whether you like it or not and that isnt one thing you you or the other religious fundamentalists can do about it.

You better accept that fact or life will be very uncomfortable for you in the future.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. As soon as this Nation bends into giving Gays legal rights to Marry, I will be retiring to my Island.
2. Maybe a bit earlier than I thought, maybe not, we shall see.
3. The day after I leave I am sure that Gawd will knock this Nation to its knee's, then wonder why then.
4. No one will think it was because of the Laws they put into place for, Gays rights to marry.
5. But I will know, and perhaps you will remember I told you so right now.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[longjonsilver]

Wow I didnt think of it that way, but he really is like Fred Phelps (at least his homosexual views). Chesswars I wish there was someone else here to debate for your side because you surely aren't doing a good job of it. What it all boils down to is a stail mate, with you claiming that homosexuals are immoral based on the Bible and everyone else here telling you why the bible should take no place in law making. It's almost pathetic. After watching you I have come to the conclusion that there isn't one valid reason behind keeping gay marriage illegal. I am just about convinced that everyone in negation of legalizing gay marriage is either ignorant, insane, or both.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But if Fred Phelps holds my views get him on here to help me.
2. My views are etched in stone, you guys can run but you can not hide forever!
3. My views will rule the day, you hide and watch.
4. Like I said I have a fall back position, you guys will have to with stand Gawds wrath.
5. And just try to remember who you said is ignorant, or insane.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[AlonzoMourning23]

3. The day after I leave I am sure that Gawd will knock this Nation to its knee's, then wonder why then.

Is it just me, or do you think God has a special interest in protecting you? Or is there some reason you think he won't attack this nation until immediately after you leave?

And here's a link to fred phelps site: http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/index.html

I saw him give a speech once.

[BoogyMan]

I am just about convinced that everyone in negation of legalizing gay marriage is either ignorant, insane, or both.

Since this is the religion section of the forum why not have a little book, chapter, and verse.

Mt 19:5Â*Â*And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Man is to leave father and mother and cleave to his wife, not his husband.Â*Â*

Lev 18:22-25Â*Â*Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.Â*Â*23Â*Â*Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.Â*Â*24Â*Â*Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: 25Â*Â*And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.

Not only is homosexuality condemned it is spoken of in the same breath as bestiality.

Rom 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: 27Â*Â*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.

Is homosexuality an abomination?Â*Â*What does the Bible say?

Before the idiocy of "gay basher" and other names are tossed at me please be sure that no such thing is true.Â*Â*I am merely pointing out what the bible teaches on the subject.

[AlonzoMourning23]

But you need to believe the bible is word for word true, something many christian scholars dispute, as many different authors wrote it with many different views. Basically, because it is in the bible does not necessarily mean that is the view of god according to some christians. There is also the issue of one translation being translated, then translated again and so on, often obscuring the original meaning. There are also contradictions, inaccuracies, etc. in the bible and some passages need to be favored over others.


Man is to leave father and mother and cleave to his wife, not his husband.Â*Â*

The quote from Matthew is a reference to divorce, you took it out of context. This can be seen when 3 is included:

3Some Pharisees wanted to test Jesus. They came up to him and asked, "Is it right for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?"
4Jesus answered, "Don't you know that in the beginning the Creator made a man and a woman? 5That's why a man leaves his father and mother and gets married. He becomes like one person with his wife.

Not only is homosexuality condemned it is spoken of in the same breath as bestiality.


Also the leviticus line was likely in referrence to male prostitution in pagan temples. The cannanites used sexuality in worship. This fits the context, as many of the previous passages dealt with behaving the way the cannanites behaved and worshipped. The hebrew word for abomination is also usually associated with the cannanites. Another thing that suggests it was not directed at homosexuality is that virtually every law in leviticus is repeated in deuteronomy. But there is one exception, homosexuality is not mentioned in deuteronomy. Instead there is a specific mention of temple prostitution in deuteronomy 23:17

None of the Israelite women shall become a temple-prostitute, nor shall any of the Israelite men become a temple-prostitute. You shall never bring the gains of a harlot or the earnings of a male prostitute as a votive offering to the temple of the Lord your God; for both are abominable to the Lord your God."

Also, even with the most literal interpretation it only refers to gay men. It does not refer to all homosexuals since it does not mention women. Considering leviticus deals with many sexual acts, and specifically bans both sexes from engaging in sexual relations with animals (and is always gender specific in what it prohibits), the fact that lesbianism is excluded is significant. In any form, even in the most direct, literal interpretation there is no banning of women from engaging in homosexual relationships. Therefore in no way is it an argument against homosexuality as a whole.

Leviticus was essenitally laws governing Israel's priests. It also prohibits men shaving their beards, wearing clothing from blended textiles, bans sex during menstruation, bans certain meats, bans tattoos, requires the sabbath to be saturday etc. It also accepts slavery in leviticus. But the main problem here is that the old laws are not applicable to christians according to galatians 3:22-25


22 But scripture confined all things under the power of sin, that through faith in Jesus Christ the promise might be given to those who believe. 23 Before faith came, we were held in custody under law, confined for the faith that was to be revealed. 24 Consequently, the law was our disciplinarian for Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a disciplinarian.

Jesus never mentions homosexuality. Leviticus contains ancient laws that no longer applied once christ came. There are also repeated referrences in the old testament to a coming new covenant and to that new covenant and the new testament.

Rom 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: 27 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.

This quote is likely in reference to idolatry. It is likely a criticism of worship as found in fertility cults of the time. A common practice of the time was also bisexuality by heterosexuals, so for them homosexual acts were unnatural, because the nature way for them to behave was heterosexually. This statement seems to be in reference to methods of worship and, to a lesser extent, unnatural homosexual acts, as opposed to those who are homosexual by birth. The latter Paul was unlikely to have much experience with, though he would have been very familiar with worship practices involving sexuality, and the widespread sexual relations between young boys and heterosexual adult men.

Though, either way, this is likely just Paul's opinion, and probably holds about as much divine inspiration as his comments on women:
1 Corinthians 14

33 When God's people meet in church, 34the women must not be allowed to speak. They must keep quiet and listen, as the Law of Moses teaches. 35If there is something they want to know, they can ask their husbands when they get home. It is disgraceful for women to speak in church.

or Philemon 1 :15-16, where he views slavery as a normal practice:

15Perhaps Onesimus was taken from you for a little while so that you could have him back for good,

16but not as a slave. Onesimus is much more than a slave. To me he is a dear friend, but to you he is even more, both as a person and as a follower of the Lord.

[BoogyMan]

But you need to believe the bible is word for word true, something many christian scholars dispute, as many different authors wrote it with many different views. Basically, because it is in the bible does not necessarily mean that is the view of god according to some christians. There is also the issue of one translation being translated, then translated again and so on, often obscuring the original meaning. There are also contradictions, inaccuracies, etc. in the bible and some passages need to be favored over others.

Since you show a complete disregard for the inspired word of God is there any sense in continuing the debate?Â*Â*You begin by telling me that the word of God is to be followed, basically at the discretion of men and then make a complete mess out of simple scripture using politico-speak of the left.

When you want to have a serious discussion based on religion rather than a rewriting of truth, we can talk.Â*Â*Your treatment of the passage from Matthew shows a lack of understanding of the text and a complete willingness to shove the idea out of the context.

Please don't think me rude or read any kind of malice into this response, it is not there.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Since you show a complete disregard for the inspired word of God is there any sense in continuing the debate?Â*Â*You begin by telling me that the word of God is to be followed, basically at the discretion of men and then make a complete mess out of simple scripture using politico-speak of the left.

You believe the bible is word for word true, fine, but that is not true of many christians scholars, priests etc.

Is this what God wants?

Psalms 137
8 Fair Babylon, you destroyer, happy those who pay you back the evil you have done us!
9 Happy those who seize your children and smash them against a rock.

Or this?

1 Corinthians 14

33 When God's people meet in church, 34the women must not be allowed to speak. They must keep quiet and listen, as the Law of Moses teaches. 35If there is something they want to know, they can ask their husbands when they get home. It is disgraceful for women to speak in church.


How about this?

Deuteronomy 22

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.


This?

Ephesians 6

5Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men

Maybe this?

1 Timothy 6

1All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered. 2Those who have believing masters are not to show less respect for them because they are brothers. Instead, they are to serve them even better, because those who benefit from their service are believers, and dear to them. These are the things you are to teach and urge on them.


This must be God's wishes, right?

1 Corinthians 11

4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. 6If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. 7 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.

No one in any mainstream Church takes the bible absolutely literally, even those who claim to. The distinction among christians is whether people claim to believe that the bible is word for word true, whether they believe it is the work of many different authors telling of God, a mixture of divinely inspired holy works and opinions of various authors and cultures, or whether it is simply a work of various authors doing their best to describe God as they understand him through history, tradition and (in the new testament) Jesus.

When you want to have a serious discussion based on religion rather than a rewriting of truth, we can talk.Â*Â*Your treatment of the passage from Matthew shows a lack of understanding of the text and a complete willingness to shove the idea out of the context.

Please don't think me rude or read any kind of malice into this response, it is not there.


The quote of Matthew was a discussion on divorce, any use of it to condemn homosexuality is taking it out of context.

If you want to use that one to suggest Jesus condemned homosexuality, then what about his support for slavery?

Luke 12

47"That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows.

In context, both make hints at possible positions taken by Jesus, but neither clearly indicate a view on the subject discussed when they are taken in context. Jesus seems to have taken no position on homosexuality or slavery. Condemnations or support of either were either never made, not recorded, or lost in history.

[BoogyMan]

You believe the bible is word for word true, fine, but that is not true of many christians scholars, priests etc.


You seem to not be willing to understand a couple of things Alonzo.

(I cannot believe I am about to post a numbered list) :cool:

1.Â*Â*The bible doesn't present a politically correct view of anything.

2.Â*Â*Slavery was not condemned during those times.Â*Â*The bible even has specific instructions for the master and slave as to how they should behave as Christians.

3.Â*Â*You are completely wrong is your adaptation of the verses from Matthew because even though divorce is the topic only man and woman are discussed as being in the marriage bond, to twist it and try to make it show any other grouping is dishonest.


What you are actually saying is that you don't like what the bible has to say and therefore you don't choose to bend your will to its instruction.Â*Â*

[longjonsilver]

It doesn't matter how alonzo feels about the Bible and whether he chooses to follow it or not. I know plenty of hard core Christians and Jews that believe gay marriage should be legalized becuase they believe that it is not there duty to crusade there beliefs upon others threw the force of law. For all we know alonzo could be a very religious man who was merrly showing how you cannot take every word of the Bible seriously or literally. You used the Bible to show that homosexuality was immoral, but the Bible also says that it is wrong for women to speak in church. I'm sure you believe that women should have the right to speak in church yet you believe homosexuality is immoral. Seems to me that you're being pretty selective. But more importantly, the law should be created without regards to the Bible's oppion on ANYTHING. It is not right to impose religious morals on anyone through force. If you believe homosexuality is immoral then protest and speak your word to change other through convincement rather than through law of coercion.

[BoogyMan]

It doesn't matter how alonzo feels about the Bible and whether he chooses to follow it or not.Â*Â*I know plenty of hard core Christians and Jews that believe gay marriage should be legalized becuase they believe that it is not there duty to crusade there beliefs upon others threw the force of law.Â*Â*For all we know alonzo could be a very religious man who was merrly showing how you cannot take every word of the Bible seriously or literally.Â*Â*You used the Bible to show that homosexuality was immoral, but the Bible also says that it is wrong for women to speak in church.Â*Â*I'm sure you believe that women should have the right to speak in church yet you believe homosexuality is immoral.Â*Â*Seems to me that you're being pretty selective.Â*Â*But more importantly, the law should be created without regards to the Bible's oppion on ANYTHING.Â*Â*It is not right to impose religious morals on anyone through force.Â*Â*If you believe homosexuality is immoral then protest and speak your word to change other through convincement rather than through law of coercion.


You have made some pretty foolish assumptions based on, well, practically no knowledge of what I believe or teach.

Have a wonderful day.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But great post Nemo.
2. And make it a federal case then.
3. Block Gay Marriage at any cost.
4. Keep it sanctified, and only legal for a Man and a Women.
5. To open this is like opening Pandora's Box, on many like marriages, some we haven't thought of yet.
6. Unless this is Amended, we will constantly have this issue flying about.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[bobbylien]

Yes, marriage is something the states should decide. This gay marriage act is just an attempt by the religious right to force their views on other states.

[longjonsilver]

Doesn't it bother you to allow the majority to decide the rights of the minority? Thats how corruption and supression commence. Humans by nature are on look out for themselves, not others that are unaffiliated.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Yes, marriage is something the states should decide. This gay marriage act is just an attempt by the religious right to force their views on other states.


Not true.

Nebraska had their gay marriage ban, as a state CONSTITUTIONAL ammendment, supported by 70%+ of state voters. A judge overturned it. Link (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,156383,00.html)

So now judges, in this case one judge, can single handedly make null and void state Constitutions? That's completely wrong.

The states have decided in droves to disallow gay marriage. Unfortunately judges are overturning election results and voter approved Constitutional changes.

11 states put this up for vote in 2004 and by a combined margin voters rejected gay marriage 2-1. Link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6383353/)

There are no states where Republicans hold a voting advantage of 2-1. Let alone Republicans that would identify themselves as so called "religous" right maintaining a 2-1 margin.

So in reality, you are exaggerating, again.... your claim.

[Newscaster]

Not every ruling by a judge is precedent setting. It dodes not necessarily affect rulings by other judges in other states.

but guys, before I retired, I worked on this story for longer than you ever even thought about it and one things was made extremely clear to me......opposition to gay marriage is NOT biblically based nor is it legally based. It is fear based. Homophobia. You fear what you dont understand and this fear turns to hate and oppression.

You can argue all you like and quote scripture till you are blue in the face but it wont change oine important thing....gay marriages will happen and it will not effect, on a personal level, anyone other than the participants. However, if you continue to make it a federal case, you will run the risk of ridicule, arrest and even punishmentment. And this is not just my opinion....its what I have been told time and time again by lawyers, police, ministers, priests rabbis and imams. And bering, I suspect, more knowedgeable about the law and religion that you, their words carry greater weight.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

We do not live in a democracy.

[Newscaster]

Yes, its true we do NOT live in a democracy. We live in a Republic but whether it is a democracy or a republic, we still have rights including the right to marry anyone we want.

And that right cannot , should not and will not be abridged. Kapeesh?
:P

[rebel farmer]

i don't give a rat's ass if gay's aren't married in your church. we're talking about about a legal contract with all the rights benefits and responsibilities that come along with that contract being denied a segment of the population. if your church is intolerant enough not to marry gays that's fine with me, but don't deny the social and legal contract to people just because what they do in the bedroom doesn't fit into your fairy tale book.

[AlonzoMourning23]

You seem to not be willing to understand a couple of things Alonzo.

(I cannot believe I am about to post a numbered list) :cool:

1.Â*Â*The bible doesn't present a politically correct view of anything.

So you think Jesus condones slaughter and killing in the name of religion? Or the idea that women (unlike men) should not speak at a house of worship? Do these seem consistent with his message?


3.Â*Â*You are completely wrong is your adaptation of the verses from Matthew because even though divorce is the topic only man and woman are discussed as being in the marriage bond, to twist it and try to make it show any other grouping is dishonest.


The question asked Jesus was ""Is it right for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?". Jesus gave no opinion on homosexuality. The quote condemned homosexuality as much as it condemned being single. Mentioning heterosexual marriage is by no means a condemnation of homosexuality.

Matthew 19
10The disciples said to him, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry." 11But he said to them, "Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. 12For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it."

Jesus does not say marriage between a man and a women is the only way, or the only reason to leave home. Your quote was a reference to divorce and in answer to a specific question posed to him. Nothing more.

What you are actually saying is that you don't like what the bible has to say and therefore you don't choose to bend your will to its instruction.Â*Â*

What do you do with biblical passages referring to a flat and unmoveable earth? Either those passages are not the work of divine inspiration, or God was wrong. I agree with the former.

There are many ways of looking at the bible. If you take it word for word then you must believe that women should be covered in church, showing her submission to her husband. That if a women is raped then she should marry her rapist. That it is acceptable to kill and torture under certain conditions. Do you believe this? In my view, these teachings are inconsistent with the message of Jesus. And, out of all the religious leaders and theologians I have known in my life, I don't know any who believe the bible is word for word correct using the most obvious interpretation. Some passages do not appear divinely inspired, and others appear to be refer to something else upon closer examination, such as in the leviticus quote you mentioned.

And besides, the quotes you gave refer to divorce and pagan worship, of the 3 mentioned romans is the only one where it's target may very well be homosexuality. But that's not without debate among liberals theologians.

Nebraska had their gay marriage ban, as a state CONSTITUTIONAL ammendment, supported by 70%+ of state voters. A judge overturned it. Link

If you read the article, it's clear the ban went well beyond simply banning same sex marriage and that's the reason it was struck down.


The states have decided in droves to disallow gay marriage. Unfortunately judges are overturning election results and voter approved Constitutional changes.

Do you think the majority are suitable to decide what rights the minority should have? Or isn't it the job of government to protect the minority from the majority?

[BoogyMan]

So you think Jesus condones slaughter and killing in the name of religion? Or the idea that women (unlike men) should not speak at a house of worship? Do these seem consistent with his message?


Have you ever even read the text of the bible without cherrypicking verses out of context?

The question asked Jesus was ""Is it right for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?". Jesus gave no opinion on homosexuality. The quote condemned homosexuality as much as it condemned being single. Mentioning heterosexual marriage is by no means a condemnation of homosexuality.

The pattern for marriage is given.Â*Â*While this particular verse doesn't condemn homosexuality, it shows the pattern for what a marriage is made up of, man and woman, not man and man or woman and woman.Â*Â*You have to be desperate to twist this simple passage not to be able to see that.

Jesus does not say marriage between a man and a women is the only way, or the only reason to leave home. Your quote was a reference to divorce and in answer to a specific question posed to him. Nothing more.

Genesis 2:21-24 says "And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22Â*Â*And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23Â*Â*And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24Â*Â*Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

Now Alonzo, you show me where man was made as a help meet for man or woman for woman.Â*Â*It is just not there and you cannot twist it into the texts.Â*Â*Woman was made to complete man and there is no other pattern that is acceptible.

What do you do with biblical passages referring to a flat and unmoveable earth? Either those passages are not the work of divine inspiration, or God was wrong. I agree with the former.

How about providing a book, chapter, and verse reference for these verses?

There are many ways of looking at the bible.

How about book chapter and verse that supports your view of this?

[AlonzoMourning23]

Have you ever even read the text of the bible without cherrypicking verses out of context?

I've read the bible on my own and I've attended years of religious school. Have you actually read it without being guided?

Though it's odd you accuse me of taking things out of context when you try to pass off Jesus' position on divorce as a denouncement of homosexuality.


Genesis 2:21-24 says "And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22Â*Â*And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23Â*Â*And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24Â*Â*Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

Now Alonzo, you show me where man was made as a help meet for man or woman for woman.Â*Â*It is just not there and you cannot twist it into the texts.Â*Â*Woman was made to complete man and there is no other pattern that is acceptible.

I'm not arguing that the bible supports same sex marriage, my position is that the bible does does not oppose or support it. The idea that "no other pattern is acceptable" appears to be an attack on being single. The idea that the bible forbids any other pattern, and using terms affirming heterosexual union to support that, is going beyond what is actually stated.


How about providing a book, chapter, and verse reference for these verses?

Earth does not move:


Psalm 104:5- He set the earth on its foundations;
it can never be moved

Psalm 96:10 "Say among the nations, "The LORD reigns."Â*Â*
The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved;
he will judge the peoples with equity

Psalm 93:1
The LORD reigns, he is robed in majesty;
the LORD is robed in majesty
and is armed with strength.
The world is firmly established;
it cannot be moved.

1 Chronicles 16:30
Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.Â*Â*

Ecclesiastes 1:5- The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises


Flat earth:
Daniel 4:10-11-Â*Â*Â*Â*Now the visions of my head upon my bed I happened to be beholding, and, look! a tree in the midst of the
earth, the height of which was immense.Â*Â*The tree grew
Â*Â* up and became strong, and its very height finally
Â*Â* reached the heavens, and it was visible to the extrem-
Â*Â* ity of the whole earth.

Matthew 4:8- Again the Devil took him along to an unusually high
Â*Â* mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world
Â*Â* and their glory.

Isaiah 11:12- And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

Revelation 7:1-Â*Â*And after these things I saw four angels standing on four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.

Job 38:13- That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?

Daniel 4:11 - The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ends of all the earth:




How about book chapter and verse that supports your view of this?


It's not a viewpoint, it's an obvious reality considering the differing interpretations of the bible among liberal and conservative theologians, catholics, baptists etc. I attended religious classes and religious schools for years, and, while I don't know if conservative or liberal theological viewpoints were more common, none of the theologians, priests, reverands etc. believed the bible to be word for word true, or at least not using the most simplistic and obvious reading of it.

You can't possibly believe that everyone interprets the bible the same way.

[rebel farmer]

what does the bible, the sutras, the torah or the quran have to do with whether same sex couples should have the same legal rights to marry in the US as as a man and a woman? none, zero. zip. zilch. zip. zero. nada.

[BoogyMan]

I've read the bible on my own and I've attended years of religious school. Have you actually read it without being guided?

Though it's odd you accuse me of taking things out of context when you try to pass off Jesus' position on divorce as a denouncement of homosexuality.

Alonzo, since you choose to lie and misrepresent what I said on this point from Matthew I find no need to further debate this issue with you as you seem ill suited to the task. I pointed out SPECIFICALLY that the Matthew verse did NOT condemn homosexuality but showed the participants in the marriage bond.

When you are ready to treat the topic with honesty I will gladly continue our discussion.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. If Gays are allowed equal rights to Marry, I'm leaving.
2. And no one wants that.
3. If I leave you will be sorry.

Regards,
SirjamesofTexas

[Newscaster]

Just a quickie.

It has been pointed out here that Jesus is quoted as making a pronouncement about marriage and divorce and that he does not say a word about Homosexuality. But some believe that marriage statement is his does indeed refer to gay marriages.

Well, let me ask this.
Since I am a writer, if I insert into my latest book a state that I do not like a particular city for one reason or another, does that mean I hate all cities or at least some other specific city not mentioned?

People put far too much meaning into some words when the meaning is not there and the author of those words was refering to something totally different. Its the mis-interpretation that causes all the trouble.

[BoogyMan]

Just a quickie.

It has been pointed out here that Jesus is quoted as making a pronouncement about marriage and divorce and that he does not say a word about Homosexuality. But some believe that marriage statement is his does indeed refer to gay marriages.

Well, let me ask this.
Since I am a writer, if I insert into my latest book a state that I do not like a particular city for one reason or another, does that mean I hate all cities or at least some other specific city not mentioned?

People put far too much meaning into some words when the meaning is not there and the author of those words was refering to something totally different. Its the mis-interpretation that causes all the trouble.


I now see why alonzomourning23 propagated his lie, and that is because he knew people such as yourself would run with it without reading the rebuttals and finding out what was actually said.

Once again, and if you do not read this it is your desire to remain uninformed and make yourself a liar as well, i pointed out that marriage was defined in that scripture in Matthew by the usage of man and woman, not man and man, not woman and woman.

I DID however point out the scriptures that condemn homosexuality.Â*Â*It just wasnt in the scripture that you two have chosen to dissimulate.

[Newscaster]

Boogy...before you start tossing the term Liar around, remember this..... at the time of Jesus there was no such thing as gay marriage. No one suggested it back then nor did anyone try it, so any quote by Jesus could not have been a reference to gay marriage. It was just a reference to marriage and divorce. Thats what cleave to your partner means.....you take a partner and stick with that partner. Jesus was commenting on DIVORCE. I'll wager you Jesus didnt have a clue about homosexuality. Probably didnt even know it existed and her certainly did not know the mechanics of it or the biological aspects of it.Â*Â*

So, like I said, and will say again....dont attribute meaning to words when that meaning was not possible at the time the words were uttered, if indeed Jesus did say them.

[BoogyMan]

Boogy...before you start tossing the term Liar around, remember this..... at the time of Jesus there was no such thing as gay marriage. No one suggested it back then nor did anyone try it, so any quote by Jesus could not have been a reference to gay marriage. It was just a reference to marriage and divorce. Thats what cleave to your partner means.....you take a partner and stick with that partner. Jesus was commenting on DIVORCE. I'll wager you Jesus didnt have a clue about homosexuality. Probably didnt even know it existed and her certainly did not know the mechanics of it or the biological aspects of it.Â*Â*

So, like I said, and will say again....dont attribute meaning to words when that meaning was not possible at the time the words were uttered, if indeed Jesus did say them.


Newscaster, read the bible, he knew about it and condemned it.Â*Â*Not in Mathew 5 but in other places, Romans chapter 1 for example.Â*Â*If you are not capable of seeing a simple pattern that is your problem, don't expect me to cave to a lesser intellect.

The term was properly used and its meaning stings because truth hurts, you intentionally misrepresented me because your political leanings find it to be expeditious.

The verse in Matthew 5 simply shows a pattern for marriage of man and woman, and clearly to drag others into that is disingenuous.

[Newscaster]

Whatever.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But my *Just got my a$$ beat* alarm just went off.
2. Nice job there Boogyman.


Regards,
SirjamesofTexas

[Buck Laser]

Newscaster, read the bible, he knew about it and condemned it. Not in Mathew 5 but in other places, Romans chapter 1 for example. If you are not capable of seeing a simple pattern that is your problem, don't expect me to cave to a lesser intellect.

The verse in Matthew 5 simply shows a pattern for marriage of man and woman, and clearly to drag others into that is disingenuous.


Jesus wrote Romans??? Who knew? Here all these years I been thinkin' it was Paul. Learn somthin' new every day!

[BoogyMan]

Jesus wrote Romans???Â*Â*Who knew?Â*Â*Here all these years I been thinkin' it was Paul.Â*Â*Learn somthin' new every day!



Hmmm, lets see, divine inspiration? Ever heard of it?

Paul wrote what he was given to write as an inspired apostle.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But if its in the Bible, you'd better believe it.
2. Gays have no right to be equal with straight people.
3. Common sense tells you that.
4. Let them go to Europe and Marry.
5. We won't have it here in USA.
6. People in Europe just about gave up on even getting married after Gays got the legal right to do it.
7. Took all the goodie off being called *Married*.
8. I don't want this here in USA, ever!

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Buck Laser]

Jesus wrote Romans??? Who knew? Here all these years I been thinkin' it was Paul. Learn somthin' new every day!

Hmmm, lets see, divine inspiration? Ever heard of it?

Paul wrote what he was given to write as an inspired apostle.

Mmmmph! I think the lord could'a got a better spokesman that Paul. Among other things, Paul didn't like women, despite the fact that there were a good many women leaders in the early church.

I've spent a good many years studying the bible, and other than that nasty stuff in the Pentateuch, I haven't been able to find much that will stand up to close scrutiny as condemning homosexuality. I used to think so, but I been doin' a lot of thinking lately...

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. There is more than enough proof to condemn Gays from being Married or even Gays as far as that goes, in the Bible.
2. Being gay is an abomination.
3. Its defenseless.
4. Don't think I am all alone in saying it, its written about in the Bible, early on and at the end.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Buck Laser]

Sorry bout that,
1. There is more than enough proof to condemn Gays from being Married or even Gays as far as that goes, in the Bible.
2. Being gay is an abomination.
3. Its defenseless.
4. Don't think I am all alone in saying it, its written about in the Bible, early on and at the end.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Well, I sure know you aren't alone in your thinking. But that doesn't make it right. Your first problem, I think, is in using the the bible as a proof text. Using that approach, you can prove just about any damn thing you want to.

When you say "defenseless," do you mean "indefensible?" I don't think a gay person is "defenseless."

The fact that you're not alone in saying it doesn't make it so. Nearly everybody said the earth was at the center of the universe just a few generations ago. And despite the fact that we can locate the solar system pretty precisely, seems to me that faith is still pretty strong.

But maybe you think slavery is defensible because there are rules regarding it in the bible.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. There was a time that slavery was alright.
2. Also some Masters were good folks.
3. That's the way it was, and could go back to some day I guess.
4. I myself think its not much different, except the slaves run free, and still depend on the Masters, in one way or another.
5. But now many just roam free, and don't amount to much.
6. Some would be better if they were some ones slaves.
7. Those days are gone at the moment.
8. I can't say I miss them.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Buck Laser]

1. There was a time that slavery was alright.
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

But it's in the BIBLE!!!

[CheesyMuslim]

[Sorry bout that,

1. But don't bust a vein there Buck Laser.
2. Sure we could use some slave laborers.
3. But slaves require things.
4. And the Masters have to supply them.
5. Insurance for health care would be a no starter these days.
6. Foods expensive too.
7. Electric bills.
8. It just doesn't add up for now.
9. It would benefit some people if they had a regular job, with three square meals, and free rent, with medical treatment as needed.
10. With a purpose in life to please his Master.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[AlonzoMourning23]

I see chess is staking out the "some slavery was good" and "some people were better off as slaves" part of the debate. With shamgar gone, pretty sure he won't get any backup. Hopefully.


Alonzo, since you choose to lie and misrepresent what I said on this point from Matthew I find no need to further debate this issue with you as you seem ill suited to the task.Â*Â*I pointed out SPECIFICALLY that the Matthew verse did NOT condemn homosexuality but showed the participants in the marriage bond.

When you are ready to treat the topic with honesty I will gladly continue our discussion.


You are using it to show the bible disapproves of homosexuality. You take a passage where jesus is asked a specific question and extending it well beyond what is actually said. Jesus answered based on the context of the question. Obviously males and females are designed to complement each other, but that says nothing about whether homosexuality is moral or immoral if the person is born homosexual.

While, in a way, I'm glad I don't have to get into another long debate. At the same time, I can't help but think my opinion is your problem more than anything else.

1. If Gays are allowed equal rights to Marry, I'm leaving.
2. And no one wants that.
3. If I leave you will be sorry.

I'm willing to take that risk.

6. People in Europe just about gave up on even getting married after Gays got the legal right to do it.

You really need to stop making up things. It's painfully obvious when you do.

Newscaster, read the bible, he knew about it and condemned it.Â*Â*Not in Mathew 5 but in other places, Romans chapter 1 for example.Â*Â*If you are not capable of seeing a simple pattern that is your problem, don't expect me to cave to a lesser intellect.

The term was properly used and its meaning stings because truth hurts, you intentionally misrepresented me because your political leanings find it to be expeditious.

So anyone who disagrees with you it's due to intelligence? Can you honestly tell me that all biblical scholars believe that the bible opposes homosexuality (ie. disagree with me)? That my position is totally alien to liberal theologians?

[Newscaster]

I just couldnt let this go by without a comment.

Cheesewarsnow, in a comment he made, earlier in this thread posted this.......
***
Sorry bout that,

1. If Gays are allowed equal rights to Marry, I'm leaving.
2. And no one wants that.
3. If I leave you will be sorry.

****

This raises an interesting question........why does he think we will be sorry if he leaves the country. I assume he is indeed talking about leaving the country. Why will the country be sorry if he leaves? Does he provide some invaluable service to all America? Is he irreplaceable for some unknown reason?


Oh yeah, he also says that no one wants gays to have the right to marry. Really. Has he talked to everyone?

I wonder if Cheesey is going to make a numbered list of answers to those questions.

[AlonzoMourning23]

According to an earlier post he made:

3. The day after I leave I am sure that Gawd will knock this Nation to its knee's, then wonder why then.

I think he believes that the only reason God hasn't destroyed the u.s. is to protect him. Once he goes God will have nothing to protect.

[Buck Laser]

According to an earlier post he made:

3. The day after I leave I am sure that Gawd will knock this Nation to its knee's, then wonder why then.

I think he believes that the only reason God hasn't destroyed the u.s. is to protect him. Once he goes God will have nothing to protect.

That strikes me as an interesting bit of arrogance..especially when I know I'm America's last rational person...Apres moi, le deluge!:D

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. Yes indeed, *I* am this important, so don't make me mad so I leave this Nation, it would be a huge mistake.
2. Unless *My* every concern is taken strictly as the truth, then this Nation could be in serious trouble.
3. Some people have this type of gravity.
4. Some slavery could be good, even these days.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Buck Laser]

Sorry bout that,
1. Yes indeed, *I* am this important, so don't make me mad so I leave this Nation, it would be a huge mistake.
2. Unless *My* every concern is taken strictly as the truth, then this Nation could be in serious trouble.
3. Some people have this type of gravity.
4. Some slavery could be good, even these days.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Mmm. I see. Then when your expository writing tutor shows up, you won't mind if she strangles you? She's not gay.

[AlonzoMourning23]

So I see we have an anti-homosexual, anti-Islam, pro-slavery, poster with delusions of grandeur. We got a real winner here.

[longjonsilver]

Chess you were crazy from the begining, but now you've gone into the deep end. I find it hard to believe that anyone takes you seriously enough to comment back to your bigoted posts.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But not bigoted, you just don't see things like I do.
2. I am correct, you guys are afraid to say the truth.
3. Sure blame me for the world's problems.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Newscaster]

Chess, lets see if you will understand it this way.......

Sorry about that.

1. Of course you are bigoted because its youre bigotry that allows
you condemn an entire group of men and women without knowing
them or anything about them.
2. Afraid to speak the truth. Chess you wouldnt know the truth if it
smacked you square in the face.
3. Blame you for the world's problems. Heck no. You have enough of
your own problems to be capable of dealing with the world.

[Mayberry]

O.K., being new here I've had to read through this entire thread all at once, so bear with me as I may mix some things up. I'm not going to highlight quotes either because I'd have to go through this whole thread again.

The argument has been made that the bible neither supports nor prohibits homosexuality. Really? Ask any Priest, Rabbi, Pastor, or what have you. I believe you'll get the same answer. Virtually all examples of marriage given in religious text combines man and woman. You can interperet the text any way you like, but as a whole, the theme remains man and woman. Man and woman create life together. This is not possible in any natural way with gays/ lesbians, pure and simple. The two were not meant to be. I am not a practicing Christian, but I can read, and what the Bible says is what I have said, in not so many words.

As far as the debate on weather gay marriage should be legal or not, like it or not, this country was founded on Christian principles, and with the exception of the left and upper right coasts, is still deeply rooted in Christian principles. I would have to go with leaving it up to the states, as the Constitution intended such matters to be. Fortunately Texas more than likely would continue to ban gay marriage, being a largely Christian state. Gays could go to Massachusettes and marry if they wish.

Personally I could care less what anyone else wants to do. Go for it. My problem, and that of a great many other folks, is that we are constantly barraged with the issue and force fed their agenda. Like I said, do whatever, just don't bother me with it, and don't expect me to like it either. That's the problem. I'm told if I don't like it, I'm a homophobe. I'm a bigot. Well I've never been afraid of a gay person, and I'm only a bigot because you say so. I know I'm not. I don't socialize with gays because I find them detestable, so if you think that makes me a bigot, that's your problem.

Gays should not be able to adopt or be foster parents because they are not parents. Parents are a father and a mother. To say gay parents would have no effect on a child is ludicrous. I've known single mothers with sons, and the sons tend to be more femenine. That's only natural I guess, since there's no male influence in their lives. Children learn from their environment. My children love to fish. They do because my wife and I do.

I don't believe much of what comes from "studies", because they're too easy to skew one way or the other. Same goes for polls. So studies saying gay parents won't effect a kid hold no water with me. Besides, a lot of studies are conducted by liberal universities, so of course they're going to say gays have no effect. A study that said otherwise would be quickly demolished by the media as "bigoted" anyway, so what's the point?

Oh, and Chess, check this out. http://christianexodus.org/ Might be right up your alley. Looks mighty interesting to me.

[T.J. Wolfe]

I say gays aren't allowed to be married and no one who labels themself as a christian can support the death penalty in any way. It's against their religion.

Wait, how about we don't allow gays to marry, and then I make a religion saying only white men can wear red shirts! They'll have to pass it!

[Technocrat]

There's no logical, internally consistant (and ethical) reason gays should be disallowed from marriage. We don't disallow morons from marrying, chain-smokers from putting on wedding rings, nor "bad parents" from marrying again and again.

It's simply absurd, and it's not as if marriage is a uniquely "religious" ceremony. Yes, Christians see it as a sacriment, yes, they don't want gays to marry. But who cares what Christians want? Christianity isn't the foundation of a liberal, constitutional republic. If they want one of those, let them go to an island and set up a little fundamentalist theme park...I mean nation--a place no one would want to stay, but everyone would visit for a few laughs. Kinda like when we go to the zoo.



1. It can't be becaues homosexuality isn't natural. That's invalid on two levels
2. It can't be due to the harm it causes, since not only is that inconsistant with others who are far more harmful we allow to marry, it's also unfounded.
3. It can't be that "tradition" says so, since the argument from tradition is a fallacy.

Nope. No real reason.

[Rider]

Gee Whiz Technocrat, here we, as a nation have been struggling with this issue for decades and finally we have your omnipotent wisdom to settle everything for us. Oh frabjus day!

But one thing, if you don't mind- why don't you supporters of homosexual marriage move off to the island; as it would be less disruptive to move 20% of the population than 80%. Thanks.

[Technocrat]

Gee Whiz Technocrat, here we, as a nation have been struggling with this issue for decades and finally we have your omnipotent wisdom to settle everything for us. Oh frabjus day!

But one thing, if you don't mind- why don't you supporters of homosexual marriage move off to the island; as it would be less disruptive to move 20% of the population than 80%. Thanks.


Quite so. You're welcome. Some of the major issues which plague America are rather silly, and if people could think rationally (thus beyond pure emotion), they really wouldn't be issues at all. They are rather simple, basic.

It is incumbent on those who claim something is unethical to show that it is wrong and thus shouldn't be allowed, to provide justifications for their claims. These claims must also be internally consistant and logical to be taken seriously. I have yet to see claims which are not based on fundamental logical fallacies (not intentional, though, always); therefore, I cannot condone leaving, since that would perpetuate the illogicality and crassness of such a debate. It would be absurd to think that simply because the majority says so, something ought be done.

If it were truely unethical, and if it were truely "wrong" you would be quite right in asking me, and others to leave. Since I would have no business propounding unethical laws, but sadly that's not here the case. Untill that is shown true. I sincerely hope we can share this one little landmass like good little tribal primates.

It stands to reason that appeals to tradition, appeal to nature, appeal to popularity, and appeal to disgust are the only real concerns people have; needless to say, arguments have emphemeral success, since these are not real concerns at all, but difficulties stemmign from tribal inability to deal with others outside their sphere of comfort or kinship. You see, there was a chap who wrote of the monkeysphere. It's a good piece, and it helps explain the modern phenomenon going on in society today.

I recomend it highly.


http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/monkeysphere.html

There it is =D

[Rider]

From your post on the thread about the rationality of atheism as opposed to Christianity, I suspect you are atheist. Is that so?

[Technocrat]

From your post on the thread about the rationality of atheism as opposed to Christianity, I suspect you are atheist. Is that so?



I don't believe in God, but I do have a philosophy and code of morality. That I do not believe in God doesn't mean that I am absent of any system of belief. I simply do not believe in a deity.

Yes, sir.

There was a time, though, in which I played with the concept of a higher being, but it didn't suit me, so I jettisoned him in favour of something I find better, more realistic. This is not to discourage you or anyone else from loving a God. There's nothing inherently immoral about it, so long as you hurt me not.

Prescriptive Gods, though, can become a problem, insofar as their normative values are often tribal in nature, merely designed as a code of obedience to the priestly classes.

Few things are more powerful than the threat of everlasting pain and pleasure. It can either do wonderful things, or it can backfire dramatically, as is a problem with radical Islam.

[Rider]

The problem that I have with atheism is that, of course individuals may develop belief systems and codes of morality for themselves, but societies that are atheistic don't seem to develop a "moral compass" (for lack of a better term). As I've written in earlier posts the only societies that have embraced atheism are the communist societies; as far as I know. We all know the record of inhumanity and destruction they have garnered. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 million murdered innocents in less than a century.

[Technocrat]

The problem that I have with atheism is that, of course individuals may develop belief systems and codes of morality for themselves, but societies that are atheistic don't seem to develop a "moral compass" (for lack of a better term). As I've written in earlier posts the only societies that have embraced atheism are the communist societies; as far as I know. We all know the record of inhumanity and destruction they have garnered. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 million murdered innocents in less than a century.


It is true, very true, that Communism, as developed by Karl Marx, was quite atheist, but I don't believe it was bad because of it's Atheism. Actually, Communism, like National Socialism, are referred to as Political Religions. They are often just as fantatical as the most deistic of religions. Communism simply supplanted a desitic religion with one exalting the omniscience and power of the proletariate, which was a huge mistake in addition to their simply crappy economics.

However, not all Communism need be atheistic (not that atheism in communism was bad). One of the problems of atheism in Communism was tha it was forced on people. Forcing an ideology on people generally doesn't work, especially in a culture such as primitive 19th, early 20th century Russia. They were not ready for Atheism.

There are several forms of Communism, and its cousine, socialism, that are in fact non-secular. Christianity itself, at it's core, is a form of communitarian philosophy, which is excellently expounded by Government John Winthrop as he sailed to Massachusettes Bay Colony on the Arabella. I believe the document is referred to as the Arabella Covenant. It's a rather rhetorically beautiful synthesis of communism (small c) with traditional religion. Essentially, he analyses Christianity and extracts it's most communistic elements.

However, aside from that socialism and other forms of communism prior to the rise of Marxism have been quite religiously inspired since the Middle Ages. Aescetic monks of the Benedictan order, as well as the Frisians, exemplified many communistic qualities. Marxism isn't to be confused with communism, but merely a form of it. His brand of Communism is typically referred to as Scientific Socialism, but (it's not really scientific) that doesn't work either.

It is important to recognize that the Communist Political religion didn't kill people because of Atheism, but because Communism is a poor national policy economically.

I for instance, and an Atheist, but I am also a Utilitarian. My political philosophy is somewhat Technocratic.


Communism is a system that best works in small kinship groups and around the notion of reciprocal altrusim; again, small community, families etc.

[Rider]

Technocrat wrote- It is true, very true, that Communism, as developed by Karl Marx, was quite atheist, but I don't believe it was bad because of it's Atheism. Actually, Communism, like National Socialism, are referred to as Political Religions. They are often just as fantatical as the most deistic of religions. Communism simply supplanted a desitic religion with one exalting the omniscience and power of the proletariate, which was a huge mistake in addition to their simply crappy economics....
Seems to me that Communism was bad (to a large extent) because there were no moral codes or laws that transcended those of the state. I won't get into any discussions about the various forms of "political religions" or the many variants of communism, as I'm not well versed on those subjects. It does occur to me that the non-secular versions of communism haven't taken to wholesale slaughter, though.

It is important to recognize that the Communist Political religion didn't kill people because of Atheism, but because Communism is a poor national policy economically.
Now that's a pretty weak argument, IMO. I don't recall any pogroms to eliminate undesireables during the great depression. Also, the socialist countries of Europe are having a lot of problems due to poor economics, but once again, I'm not aware of fresh gulags springing up over there.

My pet theory as to the collapse of the Soviet Union is that it only takes about three generations to effect moral decay in the absence of a theistic based set of absolute, objective moral standards. Figuratively speaking, 10 commandments become 7 or 8 in the second generation and are reduced by 1 or 2 in each successive generation, until moral collapse destroys the society.

[Technocrat]

Seems to me that Communism was bad (to a large extent) because there were no moral codes or laws that transcended those of the state. I won't get into any discussions about the various forms of "political religions" or the many variants of communism, as I'm not well versed on those subjects. It does occur to me that the non-secular versions of communism haven't taken to wholesale slaughter, though.


I think this is a key part of our disagreement. You seem to think that Communism was bad because of some ethical deficiency or lack of ethics. I don't. Communism would suck whether it was Christian, Islamic, Judaic, or Atheist.

Communism doesn't work because the economic principles in it are silly and invented by a monkey. The early forms of Christian communism, as well as the later Jewish and Islamic forms of Communism didn't work either. They weren't Atheist.

You are right that the non-secular forms haven't taken to mass slaughter, but not because of Atheism in the secular ones. It's more akin to the nations that happened to adopt secular communism simply were larger, more powerful economically and militarily. They were able to do much, much more. The religious communes tended to last much less long as well. They usually broke up easily (for instance, the Fruitlands experiment). Marxist communism was also extrmely bad, since it was inhernetly totalitarian. Not all communitarian systems of social organizatoin are. Marxism, not suprisingly, leads to mass death and decay. It's a particularly bad philosophy, both economically and politically.




Now that's a pretty weak argument, IMO. I don't recall any pogroms to eliminate undesireables during the great depression. Also, the socialist countries of Europe are having a lot of problems due to poor economics, but once again, I'm not aware of fresh gulags springing up over there.

Well, I don't see how it's weak, since logically, Atheism doesn't advocate anything. It's completely non-normative. You cannot blame a non-normative system from something another philosphy which incorporates it into its own, does (when that system uses normativism).

Many of the socialist countries of Europe, such as Scandinavia, aren't really all that bad (I like them, but that's another discussion for another day), are not Marxist. If they were Marxist, there would be far more problems, since Marxism is inhernetly bad all around. If you notice, the most violent, evil forms of communism were Marxist. Cuba, USSR, China, etc.

You don't see mass death in Scandinavia because Scandinavia isn't amoral, in the first place, and secondly, they aren't Marxist. A vast number of people in Scandinavia are Atheist, but they are not "morality-less." There are any number of valid ethical systems one can choose, such as Kantianism, Utilitarianism, Nicomachean ethics, Confuscism, Taoism, Buddhism, while being Atheist.

A problem is that, since atheism isn't normative, it cannot be responsible for communism. Communism would have done the same thing, under Marxism, Atheist, Christian, or Islamic a version. In fact, it could have very well be worse, since theoratic systems generally are horrific, as we can see from ancient Christian kingdoms and moder Islamic republics.



My pet theory as to the collapse of the Soviet Union is that it only takes about three generations to effect moral decay in the absence of a theistic based set of absolute, objective moral standards. Figuratively speaking, 10 commandments become 7 or 8 in the second generation and are reduced by 1 or 2 in each successive generation, until moral collapse destroys the society.

I think this is a dangerous thing to propound, since it seems to demonize Atheism unfairly and assume that only theistic religions have a monopoly on morality, when that cannot be farther from the truth. In retrospect, Theocracy hasn't been a good system of government either, and there are many problems with some religious ethics, namely they are not universalistic, and they are entirely dependent on the father-like obendience to authority with no logical justification for the principles. Most of the 10 commandments (at least the second set) are largely dealing with obedience to the local God. You also have the problem that each religion and "god" has totally different God-centred rules. Some are useful otherwise and intersect, but not many.

There's also the problem that the fact that God ordains something doesn't mean much. Is it good because God says so? Or is it good, so that God chooses it? If it's the former, anything can be moral, and it's not really absolute anyway. If it's the latter, then God himself is not the arbiter of ethics.

I am not a huge proponent of the Ten Commandments, anyway, though. I do prefer a good Principle of Utility or Kantian Cateogorical Imperative.

[Rider]

Technocrat wrote- ...I think this is a key part of our disagreement. You seem to think that Communism was bad because of some ethical deficiency or lack of ethics. I don't. Communism would suck whether it was Christian, Islamic, Judaic, or Atheist.

Communism doesn't work because the economic principles in it are silly and invented by a monkey. The early forms of Christian communism, as well as the later Jewish and Islamic forms of Communism didn't work either. They weren't Atheist....
I agree completely that Communism doesn't work because of its economic problems. I attribute the fact that the Communists resorted to death and mayhem in an attempt to correct their difficulties to the atheist component. I'm not concerned with non-atheist forms of communism here as atheism is the topic, not communism.

...Atheism doesn't advocate anything. It's completely non-normative. You cannot blame a non-normative system from something another philosphy which incorporates it into its own, does (when that system uses normativism).
I could not have put it better- atheism doesn't advocate anything. Systems with theism incorporated into them lay down moral laws, codes which transcend the leaders of the state and if done right, keep those leaders from committing the inhumanities we speak of. Now, I know that plenty of religious governments have committed atrocities. I won't try to defend religions in general. But, Christianity which evolved from the Jewish religion has probably the best set of moral values of them all.

...I think this is a dangerous thing to propound, since it seems to demonize Atheism unfairly and assume that only theistic religions have a monopoly on morality, when that cannot be farther from the truth.
I'm not demonizing atheism, I pointing out what seems to be observable fact. It's not that religions have a monopoly on morality, it's that religion is a valuble tool that helps keep that morality intact and enforced for generations. Atheism, which you recognize advocates nothing allows morality to devolve into nothing in a few short generations as morals in an atheistic society have no authority.
I need to add here that I believe that if there really is no higher being, then religious moral standards at least represent a distillation of what mankind has learned about successful societies over millenia of trial and error. While many moral codes in religion do pertain only to the workings of religion itself, I have yet to come across any morals espoused by atheists that don't have sectarian roots.

[Technocrat]

I agree completely that Communism doesn't work because of its economic problems. I attribute the fact that the Communists resorted to death and mayhem in an attempt to correct their difficulties to the atheist component. I'm not concerned with non-atheist forms of communism here as atheism is the topic, not communism.


Again, I must disagree. I really do think your facts are wrong here. The death wasn't due to correcting any "difficulties" with Atheism, but to directly because Marxism requires that to function. Stalin, Mao, and Lenin starved millions of people, not because of godlessness, as the "voice of london" would say in V for Vendette, but entirely due to their economic programmes combined egoistic greed of the leaders.

Atheism didn't cause, nor did it advoate sending grain to the cities where Lenin's political leaders were (to feed them), while his citizens staved. It was the fact that he was evil, Communism sucks. Whether they were "ofificial Atheist" is a red herring, since it's got no bearing on their crimes. I will explain this in more detail with your next paragraph.



I could not have put it better- atheism doesn't advocate anything. Systems with theism incorporated into them lay down moral laws, codes which transcend the leaders of the state and if done right, keep those leaders from committing the inhumanities we speak of. Now, I know that plenty of religious governments have committed atrocities. I won't try to defend religions in general