Same Sex Marriage Controversial

Gays have the choice to burn in hell. I don't want them to be able to define the meaning of marriage. It's ok with me if they obtain a civil union. Also any religious institute should have the right to throw them out for being gay just like you could be asked to leave a store.Darkainious

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]If we can argue that religion is not responsible for the bad stuff that came about from people abusing it then it is also not responsible for the good stuff that came about from people using it.

If we truly treat it as something inanimous.

Teenaged

Not necessarily. I would argue that there are different factors that come into play. One must break down the sorts of behaviors and trace their causes in order to fully understand whether or not one can claim whether or not it is the existence of religion itself. Some may manipulate religion for political propaganda. (to start wars for instance) Other propaganda may very well have been used to manipulate the population were religion not to exist in those circumstances. (see early- mid 1900s, facism, communism...) Those who partake in violent behavior are often psychologically unstable and have other issues that play the causal factor.

Are you saying that religion cannott be responsible for the bad stuff but can be responsible for the good stuff?

Not exactly. I am say that some of the bad stuff typically seen as associated with religion isn't caused by religion per se as the causal factors that play into human behavior are different. Furthermore, that much of the supposed negative actions that some claim religion to be responsible may very well have happened anyway as there were other actual underlying causes. (in instances such as mentally unstable extremists, political propaganda and the like) Granted, this goes for some, not all consequences. I'm not implying any sort of a universal rule here.

[QUOTE="ZCatan"]@ TroubleMaker You know, you don't have to go to Hell. There is one Way out.TroubleMaker411

I would burn for eternity with the people i love than be stuck in paradise with a bunch of racist, bigoted, intolerant a-holes with nothing better to do than to bash on those that are diferent

Plus, my wife is a different religion, i would rather be with her than you thanks pal

[QUOTE="Darkainious"] Gays have the choice to burn in hell. I don't want them to be able to define the meaning of marriage. It's ok with me if they obtain a civil union. Also any religious institute should have the right to throw them out for being gay just like you could be asked to leave a store.calzeta930

[QUOTE="TroubleMaker411"]

[QUOTE="ZCatan"]@ TroubleMaker You know, you don't have to go to Hell. There is one Way out.Darkainious

I would burn for eternity with the people i love than be stuck in paradise with a bunch of racist, bigoted, intolerant a-holes with nothing better to do than to bash on those that are diferent

Plus, my wife is a different religion, i would rather be with her than you thanks pal

[QUOTE="TroubleMaker411"]

[QUOTE="ZCatan"]@ TroubleMaker You know, you don't have to go to Hell. There is one Way out.Darkainious

I would burn for eternity with the people i love than be stuck in paradise with a bunch of racist, bigoted, intolerant a-holes with nothing better to do than to bash on those that are diferent

Plus, my wife is a different religion, i would rather be with her than you thanks pal

I did not call you any of those things.

I expressed my opinion on the people that are extremely against anything that isn't in their bible.

It was not a personal attack on you, or anyone else on this bored. as a matter of fact, it was a reply to a completely different user.

And be honest, it was a blatent attempt at pushing his religion onto someone that has absolutely no use for it

And yes, i am intolerant of people when the sole basis of their argument is " a book that was written 2000 years ago says so"

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Not necessarily. I would argue that there are different factors that come into play. One must break down the sorts of behaviors and trace their causes in order to fully understand whether or not one can claim whether or not it is the existence of religion itself. Some may manipulate religion for political propaganda. (to start wars for instance) Other propaganda may very well have been used to manipulate the population were religion not to exist in those circumstances. (see early- mid 1900s, facism, communism...) Those who partake in violent behavior are often psychologically unstable and have other issues that play the causal factor.

coolbeans90

Are you saying that religion cannott be responsible for the bad stuff but can be responsible for the good stuff?

Not exactly. I am say that some of the bad stuff typically seen as associated with religion isn't caused by religion per se as the causal factors that play into human behavior are different. Furthermore, that much of the supposed negative actions that some claim religion to be responsible may very well have happened anyway as there were other actual underlying causes. (in instances such as mentally unstable extremists, political propaganda and the like) Granted, this goes for some, not all consequences. I'm not implying any sort of a universal rule here.

I just said that if we believe religion is not to blame for certain negative things attributed to it (what you just supported), then it is fair and reasonable to support that it is also not responsible for the certain positive things attributed to it.

We, humans, are after all the central parametre, arent we?

[QUOTE="Darkainious"][QUOTE="TroubleMaker411"]

I would burn for eternity with the people i love than be stuck in paradise with a bunch of racist, bigoted, intolerant a-holes with nothing better to do than to bash on those that are diferent

Plus, my wife is a different religion, i would rather be with her than you thanks pal

Melpoe

[QUOTE="TacticalDesire"]

In this day and age it seems absurd for the United States of America supposedly the country of freedom and rights to prohibit basic civil rights to a certain sect of people. How backwards thinking...then again should we even allow homosexuals to vote, and drink from the same water fountains?

I mean really its ridiculous that they can't get married...what harm is it going to cause, no homosexual is going to "force" a straight person into marrying them, to oppose gay marriage is really just lacking common sense.

Then again look at many of the people who do oppose gay marriage. Good ol' Bill O'Reilly doesn't even like the thought of a woman as a single parent...and he thinks allowing gays to marry will possibly open the door to marrying animals...so I suppose you can see the wisdom (or lack thereof) of most of the individuals who are against seeing homosexuals in holy matrimony.

Darkainious

Honestly, yes I would because guess what...your love with the dog isn't consensual...love between two gays is consensual so...yeah big difference...oh and two people of the same sex getting married is still a marriage between two of the same species. A marriage between a dog and a person is not a marriage between two of the same species.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]I dont understand.

Are you saying that religion cannott be responsible for the bad stuff but can be responsible for the good stuff?

Teenaged

Not exactly. I am say that some of the bad stuff typically seen as associated with religion isn't caused by religion per se as the causal factors that play into human behavior are different. Furthermore, that much of the supposed negative actions that some claim religion to be responsible may very well have happened anyway as there were other actual underlying causes. (in instances such as mentally unstable extremists, political propaganda and the like) Granted, this goes for some, not all consequences. I'm not implying any sort of a universal rule here.

I just said that if we believe religion is not to blame for certain negative things attributed to it (what you just supported), then it is fair and reasonable to support that it is also not responsible for the certain positive things attributed to it.

We, humans, are after all the central parametre, arent we?

Gays have the choice to burn in hell. I don't want them to be able to define the meaning of marriage. It's ok with me if they obtain a civil union. Also any religious institute should have the right to throw them out for being gay just like you could be asked to leave a store.Darkainious

[QUOTE="Melpoe"][QUOTE="Darkainious"] I want to prevent the definition of marriage from being changed. Call me traditional. Do not call me a racist, a bigot, or an intolerant a-hole. You are very intolerant of those who have a different opinion, and who are morally opposed to something.Darkainious

Unfortunately, some of the arguments against gay marriage on thisboard

AND IM NOT SAYING FROM YOU, as a rule you're not particualrly offensive :)

Do seem to come across like that. and it is things like that that put people like me on the warpath.

[QUOTE="Darkainious"][QUOTE="TroubleMaker411"]

I would burn for eternity with the people i love than be stuck in paradise with a bunch of racist, bigoted, intolerant a-holes with nothing better to do than to bash on those that are diferent

Plus, my wife is a different religion, i would rather be with her than you thanks pal

TroubleMaker411

I did not call you any of those things.

I expressed my opinion on the people that are extremely against anything that isn't in their bible.

It was not a personal attack on you, or anyone else on this bored. as a matter of fact, it was a reply to a completely different user.

And be honest, it was a blatent attempt at pushing his religion onto someone that has absolutely no use for it

And yes, i am intolerant of people when the sole basis of their argument is " a book that was written 2000 years ago says so"

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Not exactly. I am say that some of the bad stuff typically seen as associated with religion isn't caused by religion per se as the causal factors that play into human behavior are different. Furthermore, that much of the supposed negative actions that some claim religion to be responsible may very well have happened anyway as there were other actual underlying causes. (in instances such as mentally unstable extremists, political propaganda and the like) Granted, this goes for some, not all consequences. I'm not implying any sort of a universal rule here.

medic36

I just said that if we believe religion is not to blame for certain negative things attributed to it (what you just supported), then it is fair and reasonable to support that it is also not responsible for the certain positive things attributed to it.

We, humans, are after all the central parametre, arent we?

I stole your wording. :P

[QUOTE="dagreenfish"]

[QUOTE="ZCatan"]Marriage is a religious institution, and it has always been between one Man and one Woman since Adam and Eve. The government, whether Federal, State, County, or City, should not have any say-so in determining what marriage means. Marriage is a religious institution, and in the USA, we have freedom of religion without government interference. From my personal religious and moral standpoint, I oppose same sex marriage because the Bible, which is God's Word, says that homosexuality is a sin, and that we should abstain from all forms of sin, because sin is a violation of God's Will. Plus, don't forget the harm that homosexuality does to a person. In addition to various STDs i.e. AIDS, gay bowel disease, and anal cancer, it has been statistically proven that homosexuals live significantly shorter lives than heterosexuals. It's something like 20-30 years shorter. And it is contrary to nature. Marriage is meant to be the union of one Man and one Woman, and sex is meant for reproduction. Period.ZCatan

The institution of marriage has been around before monotheistic religions. Perhaps the word itself may have religious beginings, but it is the word we use to describe these institutions.

I don't believe that, but not here to argue religion, so I'll take a different approach. Your source that claims that Adam and Eve were married didn't come about til long after people were already getting married. Thus, the institution of marriage that was practiced by these people would have nothing to do with that since they would not know what would be written in a book much later.

This would point to marriage not belonging to any one religion and it being a secular institution. Secular marriage is what is practiced in the US. You can go through a church wedding, but it won't be legally recognized unless you fill out and sign the correct paper work. Conversly, you can fill out the paperwork and never have anything to do with a church and that marriage will be legally recognized.

[QUOTE="Darkainious"]

[QUOTE="Melpoe"]Can i ask you something? do you feel this is what every religious nut job should do in their spare time? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThUC1Q7rX4kTroubleMaker411

Unfortunately, some of the arguments against gay marriage on thisboard

AND IM NOT SAYING FROM YOU, as a rule you're not particualrly offensive :)

Do seem to come across like that. and it is things like that that put people like me on the warpath.

[QUOTE="TroubleMaker411"]

[QUOTE="Darkainious"] I want to prevent the definition of marriage from being changed. Call me traditional. Do not call me a racist, a bigot, or an intolerant a-hole. You are very intolerant of those who have a different opinion, and who are morally opposed to something.Darkainious

I did not call you any of those things.

I expressed my opinion on the people that are extremely against anything that isn't in their bible.

It was not a personal attack on you, or anyone else on this bored. as a matter of fact, it was a reply to a completely different user.

And be honest, it was a blatent attempt at pushing his religion onto someone that has absolutely no use for it

And yes, i am intolerant of people when the sole basis of their argument is " a book that was written 2000 years ago says so"

Actually, what i implied was that the racists, the bigots and the a-holes are the ones that seem to think they are going to paradise.

Again, not you.

And once again, it was a reaction to a very pushy and ofensive basher. who is, at least some of those things