Originally posted by capt. apathy
judge not lest you be judged.
ok, so you think we should have no laws at all? if your not going to judge the offenders whats the point? the fact is we judge thousands of people in our courts every day. you are distorting the meaning. the meaning of the passage is not to be thinking you are better than others. it doesn't mean you shouldn't judge what is acceptable behavior in your society. and I'm not judging gays on their value as human beings. if you look through these last 5 pages of posts, you'll find me stating that many gays are great men. but they are great in spite of their immoral acts, not because of them.
When did I say there should be no laws?
Oh wait I didnt.
I said you should not make laws based on your own beliefs because you dont hold any morale authority over anyone.
Just like everybody else.
Making it the law would mean that your religion is the right one which is against your constitution.
How is that fair to other religions?
Some of which might not have a problem with gay unions.
really? read a dollar some time, not one of those funny 'monopoly money' canadian dollars either, a good ol' USA dollar. constitution was founded by religious men on Christian ideals. the whole separation of church and state thing has become twisted over the years. originally meant to stop the gov't from setting a state religion (like the Church of England at the time). or to avoid people having to be members of a certain church in order to be elected. it was never intended to be interpreted in the bastardized way it's seen now, where kids get sent home for praying in school or teachers lose their jobs for wearing a cross.
You trying to insult me with the Canadian money thing?
Our money is no worse than yours so stuff it.
that aside this is not a religious issue. it's a moral issue. just because some people don't find it immoral doesn't make it right. homosexuality has been illegal in most societies throughout history and immoral in even more. Sparta in Greece is the only one we've been able to drag up that openly approved of it and even they didn't allow them to marry (ok Sodom and Gomorrah also, but I figured that wouldn't be particularly useful in discussing this with those who don't believe the bible). you can find some one who will think just about any behavior is ok. and as mentioned many times above, pedophiles probably don't find their behavior particularly immoral, but I do and many agree with me.
Neither does it make it wrong.
That was my whole point which you seem to have missed.
If you cant say its right or wrong then maybe you should allow it.
sure they can commit they are capable of doing anything any other man can do. many gays have married women in the past and stuck to their commitment. many supress urges towards immoral behavior and try to live a live as free from immorality as possible. as far as 2 men being able to commit to a marriage to each other, you're right it's a moot point, because they aren't married.
Some gay couple are commited even without marriage.
Marriage as nothing to do with commitment of a couple.
They choose to be commited or not.
Which is the whole point of what I wrote.
religions view this as they have always done, but what about the rights of an individual to find this immoral and refuse to except it. that’s the whole problem right there. as it is now gays can go have their 'marriage' and anyone who wants to except it can. the thing is that they are trying to change law to make it where we would all have to except their marriage. all we want is a clear definition of a traditional marriage. then those who think it's ok can except it all they want (as they do now). and those of us who don't can do our best to ignore them.
They want the same rights as heterosexual couple.
I call that fairness.
If you dont like it then you can still ignore it.
if the changes are made to have the gov't legally recognize these marriages then those who decide not to recognize them would be in legal trouble for not recognizing them and treating these people as if they had a real marriage. it takes away my ability to just tolerate or ignore gays and their immorality. it takes what was once a private perversion that I could dismiss as none of my business, and drags it out and shoves it in my face where I have to come down on one side or the other of a real social issue. and I side against it.
No they would not.
If a religion does not approve of it then they simply dont have to do it.
The law should say that religions have the right to do it if they want to.
Or as I wrote earlier you can have civil unions without priests.
and if I have to be up and arguing anyway maybe I'm kinda sick of tolerating the whole open, in public, and out where my kids can see it, gay life style. this could well backfire for the gay movement here in the US. mainstream America has been doing a lot of tolerating and ignoring lately. we don't accept the life style based on immorality, but most of us do our best to ignore and tolerate It. if you refuse to let us keep on ignoring it, you might not like the decisions that come out, when you have our undivided attention.
So you want to take there freedom of expression from them?
Thats very narrow minded.
Here is a bit of advice for you: Dont watch.
Your bias keeps showing up with words like immoral.
What gives you the right to say it is?
The Bible?
Why does it have such high morale authority?
Can you prove that Jesus was the son of god and not just a man?
Nope you cant.
As long as you have not proven it I will refuse your arguments because you cant prove you are more right then any other religion (including those who accept gay unions).
So why should everyone in the US have to abide by its morality?
Maybe the Greeks had it right?
I dont know and frankly I dont care much.
