-
Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community!
-
Check Out IronMag Labs® KSM-66 Max - Recovery and Anabolic Growth Complex
Same Sex Marriages
- Thread starter ZECH
- Start date
Ahh...the old man tamed the dinosaurs theory right after God created Him.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster has a lot to say about that, but the only displays of that theory are located in the Kansas Museum of Science.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster has a lot to say about that, but the only displays of that theory are located in the Kansas Museum of Science.
my church has dictated nothing. i never said anything about christianity in my last several posts. i said a "higher power". whether you name him Jesus Christ, Jehova, budda, alla, or whatever. the founding fathers were going for a society all could live in together. and denying the moral compass all of us have inside is a good tactic (dripping with sarcasm), its what the founding is based upon. Christians would call it the Light of Christ, but you can call it whatever you like.kbm8795 said:
It may not be a Him. It could be a Flying Spaghetti Monster. To assume that all must require human sacrifices in order to be authors of morality and truth is meaningless to me. Attempting to project the precise meaning of the Founding Fathers based on religious philosophy and interpretation that has been edited and changed over 200 years is folly. And for some reason, the people always attempting to do this are those belonging to denominations that likely didn't even exist during colonial times.
No one is denying that individuals have a moral compass - but that was not necessarily created or translated through organized religion. I don't automatically assume that allowing two adults in a committed relationship not approved by someone else's church should dictate their automatic immorality and prevention from determining their own burial rights.
No one is denying that individuals have a moral compass - but that was not necessarily created or translated through organized religion. I don't automatically assume that allowing two adults in a committed relationship not approved by someone else's church should dictate their automatic immorality and prevention from determining their own burial rights.
i hardly consider the quote i gave as "attempting to project the precise meaning of the Founding fathers based on religious philosophy and interpretation."
and the words religious philosophy seems more like an oxymoron. there are philosophers of religion, but true religion, and by that i mean the principals established by God are unchanging.
and the words religious philosophy seems more like an oxymoron. there are philosophers of religion, but true religion, and by that i mean the principals established by God are unchanging.
That's where we come to a bend in the road here. Your assumption that all visualize a "God" in the same singular manner is neither realistic or inherently part of the history of Man. However, attempting to marry religion and morality has issues - issues which were sorted out clearly in the constitutions of most of our states. The two terms are not necessarily intertwined. Nor does one exclusively define the other.
But the whole point about denying personal/social/economic/practical benefits of civil marriage isn't based on "morality." It is based on the idea of limited government in the lives of private citizens, which is a conservative philosophy. Certain intimate relationships are considered above the dictation of government. Governments regulation of marriage is clearly defined in terms of practical matters involving property, children, family and burial rights. The battle here, if moral, is over whether someone else's definition of relationships should dictate that other individuals be denied the right to create their own family, have control over their own property, and have the right to dictate who is in charge of their remains and health decisions. I'm not comfortable about demanding that kind of control over other people; your morality demands that you do, and that they accept their sacrifice as paying duty to your beliefs.
But the whole point about denying personal/social/economic/practical benefits of civil marriage isn't based on "morality." It is based on the idea of limited government in the lives of private citizens, which is a conservative philosophy. Certain intimate relationships are considered above the dictation of government. Governments regulation of marriage is clearly defined in terms of practical matters involving property, children, family and burial rights. The battle here, if moral, is over whether someone else's definition of relationships should dictate that other individuals be denied the right to create their own family, have control over their own property, and have the right to dictate who is in charge of their remains and health decisions. I'm not comfortable about demanding that kind of control over other people; your morality demands that you do, and that they accept their sacrifice as paying duty to your beliefs.
"not necessarily intertwined, nor does one exclusively degine the other? while one does not exclusively define the other." your thoughts here show that you do feel there is a relationship however.
the government has a responsibility to the society. and by that i mean they have a resposibility to protect the family as the basic builiding block of society. i would not deny them the right to make decisions for each other in terms of burial rights or health decisions. i simply feel that should be a civil decision, and with power of atorney those are decisions are possible.
all of this i have said before. i feel however that calling it a marriage takes away from the sanctity of that institution
the government has a responsibility to the society. and by that i mean they have a resposibility to protect the family as the basic builiding block of society. i would not deny them the right to make decisions for each other in terms of burial rights or health decisions. i simply feel that should be a civil decision, and with power of atorney those are decisions are possible.
all of this i have said before. i feel however that calling it a marriage takes away from the sanctity of that institution
No. I don't feel there is a relationship. Sacrificing humans into a volcano might be considered moral in a religious sense. Is that the kind of relationship you mean?
The government has a responsibility to protect health and orderly dispersal of property - not endorse one person's reliigous belief in order to oppress someone else. Gays are members of families, too - but isn't it the historical "moral" belief that they are supposed to be kicked OUT of families?
If things like powers of attorney were so unchallengeable, there would be no need for any next-of-kin laws for marriage. Everyone could just use the same thing. There would be no need for "special automatic rights" for one group of people who claim moral superiority because of their personal beliefs.
There is nothing moral about claiming sanctity over a word. And nothing sanctimonious about using that word to demand that everyone pretend these people are "single". They aren't. And they've had their bodies exhumed from graves, their partners barred from funerals and their property stolen by distant cousins because someone else wants to preserve their insecurity about sanctity.
Is that really much better than just tossing them into a volcano?
The government has a responsibility to protect health and orderly dispersal of property - not endorse one person's reliigous belief in order to oppress someone else. Gays are members of families, too - but isn't it the historical "moral" belief that they are supposed to be kicked OUT of families?
If things like powers of attorney were so unchallengeable, there would be no need for any next-of-kin laws for marriage. Everyone could just use the same thing. There would be no need for "special automatic rights" for one group of people who claim moral superiority because of their personal beliefs.
There is nothing moral about claiming sanctity over a word. And nothing sanctimonious about using that word to demand that everyone pretend these people are "single". They aren't. And they've had their bodies exhumed from graves, their partners barred from funerals and their property stolen by distant cousins because someone else wants to preserve their insecurity about sanctity.
Is that really much better than just tossing them into a volcano?
your analogies have no corelation whatsoever. and when i said your thoughts do show they have a relationship is because of how you worded your statements, "not necessarily" or "exclusively define" show you are leaving the posibility that they do in fact interrelate.
No, you miss the point. Those are your thoughts that show a correlationship, particularly because they require that someone else sacrifice in order to maintain validity for your beliefs as morally sound. On the subject of civil marriage, there is little room for such nonsense, because in the United States we don't poll strangers for approval of the people we individually choose to marry. Yet you maintain that society has a "moral" obligation to denigrate these people in 1000 practical matters simply because you don't understand why your God created them that way.
It's just a nice polite way of sacrificing their lives and dignity to the volcano.
It's just a nice polite way of sacrificing their lives and dignity to the volcano.
the way my god created them that way? i laughed for at least 5 min at that statement. saying god created you a certain way is the biggest cop out i have ever heard of. its saying im not responsible for my actions and blaming everything on god. how ridiculous. a pedophile could claim the same defense, would that be ok? God made me this way i cant help myself, so its ok. what a crock.
and whether they get married or not, whether this country legalizes it or not, my beliefs are more than valid and morally sound. thats the thing. morality is not something that changes with the winds of public opinion. as much as those out there want to change public opinion and sentiment by redefineing terms to match their situation. just like clinton's. "i didnt know oral was sex" defense its just a load of crap
and whether they get married or not, whether this country legalizes it or not, my beliefs are more than valid and morally sound. thats the thing. morality is not something that changes with the winds of public opinion. as much as those out there want to change public opinion and sentiment by redefineing terms to match their situation. just like clinton's. "i didnt know oral was sex" defense its just a load of crap
Mother nature if you will, created them that way.....the idea of God is just foolish and simple minded.......but you already know that.kbm8795 said:
I don't try to tell 6 year olds that Santa is fake and only on occasion try to teach a bible thumper that all they believe about god is just simple tricks and nonsense.....But all too often they are so full of feer or they have nothing good in their miserable lives that they are too far gone to reason with.
bio-chem said:
What is a load of crap is the pompous notion that you have some sort of privileged information that magically dictates morality which naturally requires others to serve as a sacrificial lamb. But under your reasoning, since the overwhelming number of pedophiles are men, that entire gender should be legally restricted as to what kinds of rights and benefits they can access, particularly since they have shown an tendancy to display immoral behaviors that others in society don't normally display.
And actually, yes - morality does change with the winds of public opinion, but more often with the growth of public knowledge. What you believe is moral today would very often be thought of as immoral a century ago.
But what is more telling is a subtle arrogant attitude that you somehow know what and why creates. . .period. There are people born with incomplete sexual organs, or parts of the organs of both sexes. The doctor and parents DECIDE what gender they will be, and, surprisingly enough, if they've made the "wrong" choice, the child often grows up confused and oppressed about gender identity. This "moral" treatment has nothing to do with the child's actions or decisions, but the decisions others made to change the identity to please the social beliefs of someone else.
my original post on this stated that this moral reasoning is inherint in us all. and that wasnt my interpretation of it thats what the quote said. are you saying self effident truths are changing?kbm8795 said:
and stop with this whole incomplete sexual organs bull, get back to the point. in some arguements useing the extreme does point out the flaws in ones logic, however in this case it just clouds your point.
the original quote says "self effident truths" are derived from a "higher law" which the founders tried to incorporate in the rule of law that is the basis for our mode of government. by denying these self efident truths, or saying they can change by the sway of public opinion or growth of public knowelege you are only opening up your own arguement to attack. public opinion sways like a pendulum and will eventually reverse itself as it always has. leaving one with nothing firm to stand on. at some point one has to draw a line in the sand and say this is right and this is wrong. to do otherwise drives a society to fall because it has nothing firm as its foundation.
arogance? arogance is saying public knowlege supercedes moral judgement. that public knowlege or belief will someohow guide us. what happens when the public chooses anarchy? when we say murder is not wrong? when we deny the existence of this higher power from which the higher law comes we open ourselves up to these things.
When?
Hi Pepper,
When? About 2000 years ago or so - before the INVENTION of Christianity. Another religion. Religion IS CREATED BY MAN. There are THOUSANDS of them each with their own beliefs and disbeliefs all based on the whims of MAN.
This world is at least MILLIONS of years old as nearly as can be scienifically determined by todays methods and the best available research.
In Nature and the Natural World of which Man is a part whether he agrees, disagrees, etc. Heterosexuality, BiSexuality and Homosexuality have always existed. As with anything in life itself there is variation(s) - this includes Sex - naturally so and for good reason(s).
Take Care, John H.
Pepper said:
Hi Pepper,
When? About 2000 years ago or so - before the INVENTION of Christianity. Another religion. Religion IS CREATED BY MAN. There are THOUSANDS of them each with their own beliefs and disbeliefs all based on the whims of MAN.
This world is at least MILLIONS of years old as nearly as can be scienifically determined by todays methods and the best available research.
In Nature and the Natural World of which Man is a part whether he agrees, disagrees, etc. Heterosexuality, BiSexuality and Homosexuality have always existed. As with anything in life itself there is variation(s) - this includes Sex - naturally so and for good reason(s).
Take Care, John H.
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2002
- Messages
- 6,978
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 46
John H. said:
Actually John, the New Testament has been around for only 2000 years. Theres speculation on how long the old testament had been around before that. While Christ (and Christianity then) can only have been around for 2000 years, it has roots going back much farther in the old testament. I'm not sure if that means anything though, as there are other religions that have been around as long.
Hey, whats this news with California possibly adapting gay marriages? Or have they already? I'm busy writing papers right now and haven't had time to check the news past Katrina and the situation in Iraq.
bio-chem said:
Bio:
Churches (religions) DICTATE ALL THE TIME - their beliefs and disbeliefs. To their "flock" and to all others if they can. To whoever they can and to whoever they can get "to listen" and "to follow"....
Religions have had as their "moral compass" the slavery of others for example - study your history. I do not subscribe to that "moral compass" or anything like it.
God (or Whoever you perceive Him to be and Whatever you wish to call Him) gives each human being a brain and expects each of us to utilize it to the best of our abilities which INCLUDES QUESTIONING of ALL THINGS including religion and God Himself with an open mind and objectively....
This Nation (The USA) was NOT founded on Christianity. It was founded on Freedom - Freedom too of religion - and/or none - to believe as one personally believed without interference from anyone or anything. This Nation was lucky to have had Founders who recognized the ABUSES of religions and religion and wanted to have a place where all peoples could live in true peace and hopefully harmony as each person chooses.
John H.
Eggs said:
Hi Eggs,
The New Testament really is not that old - it is around 1500 years or so old. The Old Testament is nothing more than the old Jewish law books... As religion(s) go the world is MUCH older and has been existance far longer probably although each individual probably had their personal "feelings" or "beliefs" from day one "about things"...
I really wish it were possible to ELIMINATE COMPLETELY these three things from existance:
1) Religion(s).
2) Government.
3) Abuse (of children as well as others in ANY fashion)
This world would be MUCH BETTER OFF without these.
California? Gay Marriage? I have not been keeping up lately - been REAL BUSY!!! (bio's lucky I guess!)...
I barely have any time to even check out this site right now - but things will be taming down soon and I'll BE BACK!!
Take Care, John H.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,476
- Reaction score
- 14
- Points
- 0
John, this is just ridiculous. The OT was around during the time of Christ. That was their Bible. Christ even quotes from it. The first five books of the Bible were "the Bible" for hundreds, if not thousands, of years before that. The Gospels are believed to have been written 40 years or so after Christ death. The rest of the NT is primarily letters written by Paul and others. Unless Paul lived to be 500 years old, these books were written about the time of Christ.John H. said:
It doesn't bother me that you do not follow my faith, but it pisses me off to no end that you constantly post information about it that is just plain wrong.
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2002
- Messages
- 6,978
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 46
John H. said:
John - The New Testament dates from the earlier books at around perhaps 50AD at the earliest. The majority was written between 50AD and 100AD. Which isn't so far off from the times when Jesus was supposed to have lived (and died). In fact, studies have dated BC (B-Day
) at having been pehaps 5 years later than initially assumed. Being that he was supposed to have lived for 33 years... that puts his death at around 38AD. So if books were beginning to be written by his apostles 12 years later (though its not really so easy to tell?!?), then thats not such a long amount of time.Realise in comparison, that books about earlier Greek figures and what not are generally dated several hundred years after the events they describe. But anyways. I find the Vedas to be very interesting as well. But they were caried through oral tradition for so long before actually being committed to writing. For possibly thousands of years
Anyways, thats a whole other subject I'd guess.Hope thats a good kinda busy in your life
not on christianity john on christian priciples, any study of the lifes of the founders will tell you that. including their prayers to God before they took upon themselves such a grave responsibility. let me just say this john and then im done with this thread for good, We must change ourselves to match the truth that is God, not change God to match whatever we want God to be at the moment.John H. said:
despite your clear and precise explanation of the truth, he will still post the same misinformation next time. i appreciate you post however. ok now im doneEggs said:John - The New Testament dates from the earlier books at around perhaps 50AD at the earliest. The majority was written between 50AD and 100AD. Which isn't so far off from the times when Jesus was supposed to have lived (and died). In fact, studies have dated BC (B-Day
Realise in comparison, that books about earlier Greek figures and what not are generally dated several hundred years after the events they describe. But anyways. I find the Vedas to be very interesting as well. But they were caried through oral tradition for so long before actually being committed to writing. For possibly thousands of years
Hope thats a good kinda busy in your life
Hi Eggs,
Sorry to get back to ya so late - the "busy" is the good kind for sure!
And fun too!
The "authorities" of "religion" disagree themselves on the New Testament and how long AFTER the death of Christ it has its origin and "birth". Most feel it is actually about 200 or so years AFTER the Death of Christ.
The Old Testament is really nothing more than the old Jewish law books....
For sure the Bible was not in existance - generally available and "read" - before the invention of the printing press circa 1350 A. D. or so....
I have a REAL problem with people "saying" anything, especially when it is even a week old let alone YEARS old. And people tend to not remember accurately much of anything the longer time goes by - it is a thing Nature builds into most of us....
Religion IS MAN-MADE. The Bible was written by MEN - over 40 and over a long period of time each with their own personalities and opinions written into what they say... Same thing applies to any religion.
I look at the region of the world where all this is supposed to have happened and SEE how they live, act, conduct their lives, treat each other, etc. and I can tell you I want ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with all the BULLSHIT. The heat, humidity, sand blowing everywhere and in everything, unemployment, the starkness of the land and the people... THEY ALL ARE COMPLETELY NUTS and have been killing each other over their "beliefs" (which are probably ONLY the minds of THE INSANE anyway....)
Certainly the American Indians were more in touch - HONESTLY - with life - and living - AS IT ACTUALLY IS and SAW and SEE things FOR REAL....
Take Care, John H.
bio-chem said:
Hi Bio,
I believe in SEEING AND UNDERSTANDING AND KNOWING with an open mind and objectively all things. The more we know the better off each of us is. The less, the less we know and the less we are. I NEVER will allow someone to interfere with my FREE need and desire and obligation to UNDERSTAND AND TO KNOW. Religion most of the time IS GUILTY of trying to BRAINWASH and CONTROL and DAMN. I am NOT into all the CRAP!!! And I believe that any REAL TRUTHFUL GOD would NEVER BE either!
Take Care, John H.
Pepper said:
Many claim that it may have been longer than 40 years.
This brings in the human adulteration, what Muslims refer to as "alteration."
El al-khitab - people of the book, nonetheless, but it was altered.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,476
- Reaction score
- 14
- Points
- 0
We believe the Bible to be inspired by God and therefore error free. Regardless of when written.
John H. Your conclusions about Christrians are based on two things 1) their view on homosexuality and 2) what you have seen/heard in the media about the actions of certain Christians.
You have no idea what it means to be in a church. You have no idea of love and childess pouring out of these churches. You really have no right to continually say such horrible things about Christians with so little knowledge.
You do exactly what you claim Christians do. Would you like it if I went to a Gay Pride parade and assumed you were like that? You'd accuse me of being a bigot and being hatefull. That is exactly what you are and I'm done with you.
John H. Your conclusions about Christrians are based on two things 1) their view on homosexuality and 2) what you have seen/heard in the media about the actions of certain Christians.
You have no idea what it means to be in a church. You have no idea of love and childess pouring out of these churches. You really have no right to continually say such horrible things about Christians with so little knowledge.
You do exactly what you claim Christians do. Would you like it if I went to a Gay Pride parade and assumed you were like that? You'd accuse me of being a bigot and being hatefull. That is exactly what you are and I'm done with you.
Okay, how about this,
Only Hot lesbians ages 18-30 can get married?
Only Hot lesbians ages 18-30 can get married?
Oh that's nice again a thread that will hit the 1000 posts. 
John H. said:
No smoking
