Actuallu Islam is much larger than christianity. And like I said, IM NOT CATHOLIC! and fundamentalist christians and far-right conservatives are nothing compared to you far-left liberal commie bastards.

I've not asked that. I've put to question the basis of your stance and beliefs, none of which have you even attempted to counter instead preferring the "woe is me, you just hate Christians" approach to dealing with things.

Beastiality involves a non-consenting aspect. That's my beef with it. If a chick can say to a horse "want sex?" and the horse can reply with "hell yeah, I'm horny" then all power to her. The only problem is, the horse can't assert confirmation of willingness. On the other hand, homosexuality (unless it's rape) is consenting.

Did I call you Catholic? You invoked the the quantity of Christians as evidence. I attacked the basis of such a claim. Christians make up some 2 billion of the worlds population (1 billion of whom are Catholic) while Islam makes up some 1 billion of the worlds population. However, Islam is the fastest growing.

And yes, far-left liberal commies are the bane of the world. Damn our egalitarian stance and protection of the worker! Whoever invented the phrase "a strong economy is nothing if it does no good" is plainly a ****head with no idea! **** the people as long as the capitalists pockets are gold trimmed!

how is far lefy communist? communistic government controls everything and is far from liberal
ignorance is always fun

Nice to see this place can still have a debate without namecalling :rolleyes:

Im done posting here. Nothing I say is enough for you people. Have fun cluster-f*cking yourselves with liberal BS.

first off i couldnt care less what the g@ys did, its there choice let em have it.
but my opinion on the subject is different, i dont see it right, they have the right to do what they want but i was aware that man and woman had a reproduction prosses to continue on with children and the family blood line. you cant have that with homosexauls. And we all know that they wont be accepted right now in the times we live, the world may not be as strict as it was 100 years ago, but its still enough that they wont be accepted

and i repeat, they can do what ever they want, its not my prob.

Lol, the question was too hard for oojay apparently.

I hope you all die in your sleep.

If you`re wern`t going before you are now i`m sick of reading this crap.

Bye

So ... do you follow leviticus or not? I'm still not clear as to how you divert the source of homosexuality from being God and neither am I clear as to how the Old Testament arrived in the Bible if not for the fact that the Christian religion is a denomination of Judaism?

I guess it was too much to expect a rational debate on an online forum. I almost wish I was a conservative Christian just so I could set an example as to how someone defends their beliefs.

he cant post anymore fal.

Leviticus doesn't dictate that you disagree with beastiality, it demands you to murder those who commit it. Why don't you?

He could at the time I started writing ;)

well im not obviousley defending the bastard am i? thank god we are rid of g.ay haters

Beating a dead horse here, but I find there is nothing wrong with gay marriages.

Clearly if your that way inclined then so be it. It is beyond me how anyone can deny the fact that it is no one elses right to decide who you should and shouldn't be attracted to, and after doing so, to label that personal choice of theirs, right or wrong.

Gay haters may as well fall in the same category as being racist. And in a rather extremist sense, would it be wrong to call Christianity (or whatever religion), the proverbial Hitler?

Hate to break it to you oojay, but....

http://www.nqtnews.com/?story=article&id=90

Yep, yep, and Google has homosexual sheep in the clear on this argument too.

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=oojay&word2

hell lets just clear up the abortion issue too while we're at it.

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php...2=pro+abortion

Gay sex rarely results in the need for abortion. Anti-abortionists should love it.

Lets all say a big yay to gay!!!

I personally that with regards to christian marriages, or marriage under any other religion, its up to the leaders of those religious establishments to determine who can and can't be married by them and what this marriage entails. If rules relating to those marriages discriminate against any particular group then I don't feel there's anything particularly wrong with that... if you want to be part of a certain religion then there's no use bitching when their rules don't suit you.

For marriages in general, though, I don't really see what the problem is with homosexual marriage and I don't think it's the position of religion to set the rules by which non-religious types get married, if they are married in a non-religious way. Marriage is a tradition, a tradition that is perfectly capable of existing independent to religion. The idea of marriage between two people predates modern religions by a long way, so the suggestion that modern religions carry some greater moral weight with regards to how marriage is carried out doesn't really hold. Modern religion didn't invent marriage, so it has no right to set the guidelines for non-religious marriages. I personally believe that religious people should be payed less attention than non-religious people when it comes to opinions on non-religious marriage, as religious marriage is their scene rather than non-religious marriage.

Ok, I got to about page 4 of this crap and couldn't be bothered to read more. It's insane that a thread about gay marriage once again turned into a religious debate. I don't know why I bothered making theseposts if even those who support gay people don't bother to read them ( I completely understand why someone like Oojay would turn a blind eye).

There is no rational explanation to why gay marriages are not allowed in most countries, including most states of the U.S. if you extract religion from the issue. The state is supposed to be a civil institution, separated from religion, and western societies love to flaunt this theorem when trying to prove how muslim societies are backward. Hypocracy at its best. By not allowing gay people to marry, they ( we ) are being denied one of the essential human rights.

There is a concensus on at least one thing, that homosexuality is not a psychiatric condition, an illness. If we are not harming others and are with full mental capacity, there is no other reason for denying us equal rights as other people. Most constitutions are now based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and still have the audacity to proclaim that "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights". Yes we are all born equal, but we become unequal as soon as someone finds out he "fancies" the same sex. "The concept of not denying people their rights unless you can show a compelling reason to deny them is the very basis of the American ideal of human rights." - Scott Bidstrup's essey on gay marriage


There are reoccuring arguments whenever this issue is being discussed , so let's adress some of them.

1. "The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State." ( as proclaimed by article 16. point 3. of the Universal Declaration of Human rights.

This is one of the essential arguments anti-gay marriage politicians drag up, that by allowing people of the same sex to marry, who cannot reproduce the "normal way", they are somehow threatening the "institution" of marriage, as if heterosexual people would be so offended by gay people having the same rights as them, that they would not marry any more or have children. Absolutely rediculous. The second point of this argument is that gay people and their union simply cannot be allowed to be on the same level ( as far as the name and the rights this institution would include ) as one of the "fundamental group units of society". I assume, purely on the basys of principle ( there is no other rationale to justify such a distinction, once again, if you exclude religion from it, a family can consist of two people of the same sex ). I am deliberatly avoiding the issue of gay couples adopting children as that is a completely different matter.

If one of the essential purposes of marriage is procreation, infertile couples shouldn't be allowed to marry either.

2. Homosexuality is morally wrong and therefore shouldn't be sanctioned.
"There is such in a thing in the United States as the separation of Church and State. America is not based on one particular faith, nor on a single moral code, but on a plurality of creeds. Your feelings as a member of a particular religious community notwithstanding, you have a responsibility as a citizen to support the extension of the same civil rights you yourself enjoy to everyone equally. Race, sex, religion, and sexual orientation must not affect the even application of civil rights. Homosexuality is not morally wrong, but even if you believe it is, you must not oppose the right of any person to claim equal privileges under the law." - http://www.soyouwanna.com/

3. "The suggestion that homosexuals can be 'married' is absurd, since marriage is, by definition, a union between a man and a woman."

"There has never been any fixed, traditional definition of marriage. The idea of marriage is constantly changing according to the changing needs of society. The world we live in today is very different from the world of a hundred or fifty years ago and our institutions must be altered to reflect these changes. There is no evidence to suggest that same-sex marriage would be harmful to society." - http://www.soyouwanna.com/

"Some argue that marriage is defined narrowly as only being between a man and a woman, so gays can’t possibly marry. The fact is, though, that the nature of marriage has changed in definition and make-up many times over the centuries. Marriage today isn’t at all like what it was two millennia or even two centuries ago. The changes in marriage have been broad and fundamental, so what are traditionalists really trying to defend? What is “traditional” about modern marriage?

Most of these changes have moved power in marriage away from the families and to the couples, as well as making women more equal. Let’s look at just a few of the most significant changes in marriage in the West over the past centuries:

Legalization of divorce
Criminalization of marital rape (and recognition that the concept even exists)
Legalization of contraception
Legalization of interracial marriage
Recognition of women’s right to own property in a marriage
Elimination of dowries
Elimination of parents’ right to choose or reject their children’s mates
Elimination of childhood marriages and betrothals
Elimination of polygamy
Existence of large numbers of unmarried people
Women not taking the last names of their husbands
Changing emphasis from money and property to love and personal fulfillment" - Austine Cline

I thought that too, its a pretty glaring flaw in their logic. Also, any couple who choose not to have kids whether infertile or not should have their marriage annulled (by law :ar_15s:) if this logic were applied thoroughly.

And if this statement "The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State." is important to them, shouldn't they be focussing on re-outlawing divorce (as, regardless of how it may improve people's lives it is technically allowing the 'family unit' to break up) rather than banning *** marriage? Ignoring adoption, a married *** couple who don't produce their own offspring isn't some kind of damaged family unit. It's a two-person family unit.


EDIT: And why is the word 'gay' still blocked? Aaarrgh.

That post was the best in this thread

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php...ojay&word2=fal
Nailed the ****er!

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php...jay&word2=Kurt
Oojay, man, you just plain suck :D

This is where hypocracy kicks in, they're perfectly aware of the fact that in a civil society divorce is sanctioned yet they justify not allowing gay people to marry implicitly ( if not explicitly as in Croatia for instance, I won't even go into the bullshit my parliamentary representatives spouted out whilst discussing gay marriage ) by turning to the Bible. If gay marriage is a travesty and unnatural, then so is divorce, at least in the eyes of God, so why does the civil state allow it??
Let's face it, the institution of marriage means very little in America if there is about a 50% divorce rate. Britney Spears can have a one day marriage, but serious and mature gay couples are not allowed to...talk about travesty.

I personally don't believe in marriage, you don't need a piece of paper to justify your love for another, but there are some serious rights that come from being married and are denied to homosexuals, such as, the right to decide on medical treatment, the right not to testify against your partner in a court of law, then there's the whole heritability issue, healthcare insurance etc....

Edit: I seriously don't know why I bother trying to have a serious discussion on a fucking kiddy forum...

Well, it helps to educate the kids at least.

Also, discussing, arguing and explaining issues, whether it be to kiddies or adults, dumbasses or geniuses... it all requires different approaches so its all good practise, even for a lawyer in training. Remember that juries, clients and other lawyers all have the ability to be ignorant or immature too. Plus, when you discuss the same issues with adults, a lot of the time you encounter the same ignorance and illogical opinions except 'maturity' and time often teaches the ignorant and illogical to keep quiet when they don't know what they're talking about.

If the judge or jury start playing jump rope in the middle of my closing argument ( which is what's happening here ), I'll consider changing proffesions...
I doubt half the kids that appeared in this thread have the attention spand to read a post longer than 3 sentences.

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php...jay&word2=Tdoc
pwnt

This is where Canadians are miles ahead of Conservative thinking Americans, most Canadians I have encountered are pretty free minded in terms of homosexuality. Every homophobe I have ever encountered here objects not due to religious reasons but the phobia of being peckerchecked in a mens bathroom or (GASP) being hit on, because every straight male is clearly Brad Pitt to a G-ay male. Myself and my crew got over these phobias long ago

Blame Canada
/end rant

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php...1=god&word2=me

I pwn :bringit:

1. Do not apply the actions of past "Christians" to the actual teachings. What is said and what is done varies due to the fallacy of humanity.

2. I stand by my original logic.

3. Wait, I'm going to reply to what oojay said about the choice to be homosexual or not.

If God, in his infinite power, designs man, then it is safe to assume that personality is inherently ingrained into a person. People can learn different behaviors, but even from birth, some children are more out going, more adaptable, etc. With this in mind, it is also safe to assume that due to this inherent behavior, Man is predisposed towards certain behaviors. Homosexuality is a behavior. It is a geneticly ingrained behavior.

To deny someone the same rights as someone else based on genetics is bigotry.

You oojay, are a bigot. Have fun in church!

False. The Jewish Holy book is the Torah which is the first 5 books of the Modern Bible.

Yes, but Jews also use a branch of texts and incorporate more of the Old Testament books, while those of the Torah constitute the core of Jewish dogma. In the same way the New Testament constitutes the core of Christian dogma. The point still remains that Christianity is, in essence, little more than a denomination of Judaism in the same way that Mormonism, Jehovahs Witnesses and the ilk are denominations of Christianity.

Actually, the Jewish holy book is the Tanakh, which consists of the Torah, the Nevi'im, and the Ketuvim, and is the same thing as the Old Testament though I think the books are in a slightly different order.

Really, in all my religeon corses we refered to it as the Torah...though she was an episcopaliean lesbian...damn godless mutts.

Hmm..didn't know that. Iz you jewish by any chance?

No, but I can read wikipedia. Torah only represents the "law" or "instruction" section of the Jewish Bible, whereas the other parts are "Prophets" and "Writings." With all the books represented, it is apparently most similar to the Protestant version of the Old Testament, I think a couple parts recognized by other Christian denominations aren't recognized by the Jewish faith.

Right, I was going to include the part about the prophets in my question but...was too lazy too? There are various versions of the Old Testament?

Different Christian denominations have slightly different versions. Most non-Protestant denominations include the Deuterocanonical books, which were removed by Martin Luther, and whose inclusion in the Bible was disputed by the early Church.