U.S. Supreme court overturns anti gay marriage laws.

[Vitalius]

Ok, But the modern definition is completely different than the biblical one. Because a Father isn't being payed in order for his virgin daughter to be wed...

That's not the definition though. The definition, as viewed by us (not speaking for all Christian denominations, but I believe this applies to most), is simply that, in marriage, God brings the souls together. It's more complicated than that, but that's the simplified way of saying it. And that definition is literally timeless.

I, and more than likely religious people in general, would say that can't and won't happen in same sex marriage because that would be the equivalent of saying that God is/was wrong at one point or another based on precedent. Which is the same as undermining all that He is or that we believe Him to be. 

[beebskadoo]

That's not the definition though. The definition, as viewed by us (not speaking for all Christian denominations, but I believe this applies to most), is simply that, in marriage, God brings the souls together. It's more complicated than that, but that's the simplified way of saying it. And that definition is literally timeless.

I, and more than likely religious people in general, would say that can't and won't happen in same sex marriage because that would be the equivalent of saying that God is/was wrong at one point or another based on precedent. Which is the same as undermining all that He is or that we believe Him to be. 

Than the legal definition of marriage is not the same thing as the religious definition. So therefore it is unaffected by your religious definition. So aren't you pissed at the government for changing your religious definition to a legal one? Why be caught up on terms when the existing definition in the legal sense is completely different from the religious one?

[calarahil]

Than the legal definition of marriage is not the same thing as the religious definition. So therefore it is unaffected by your religious definition. So aren't you pissed at the government for changing your religious definition to a legal one? Why be caught up on terms when the existing definition in the legal sense is completely different from the religious one?

 

As long as the government stays away from trying to tell religions how to practice I think its fine. Its just very hard to really trust the government to do in the US without trying to appeal to a social group which bugs its always about how can we grab a vote versus how can we make a difference or improve things. However that withstanding outside the standpoint of marriage, religion and homesexuality people here are being involved and hopefully they can be treated as such. 

[beebskadoo]

As long as the government stays away from trying to tell religions how to practice I think its fine. Its just very hard to really trust the government to do in the US without trying to appeal to a social group which bugs its always about how can we grab a vote versus how can we make a difference or improve things. However that withstanding outside the standpoint of marriage, religion and homesexuality people here are being involved and hopefully they can be treated as such. 

Same goes in reverse, As long as religious groups stay out of the affairs of the government i'm fine with that. That is what separation of church and state is.

[Vitalius]

Than the legal definition of marriage is not the same thing as the religious definition. 

Yes. You said that earlier. That is true.

So therefore it is unaffected by your religious definition.

No, the ones who have the most voting power in the US are the Christians (76% or so, I believe, but don't trust wikipedia). Voting -> government -> Legal. We can't exactly make it the religious definition (unconstitutional, via the separation of church and state), but we can vote against measures to allow it beyond the current parameters set by the law. Whether that's right or not, we'll see.

So aren't you pissed at the government for changing your religious definition to a legal one?

No, not really. They didn't change much. It's just a legalistic way of making it so that the religious side isn't hurt by the legal one. In other words, the legal definition makes it so that the religious one is not defiled (at least the way it's viewed by religious people) for lack of a better word.

Why be caught up on terms when the existing definition in the legal sense is completely different from the religious one?

I'm not caught up on terms. I do what others do. If the argument for inequality is based in an individual's standpoint, then that's how I view it, because apparently that's what's important to them. 

[calarahil]

Same goes in reverse, As long as religious groups stay out of the affairs of the government i'm fine with that. That is what separation of church and state is.

I think that is a point of perspective. However I respect your viewpoint. I don't see religious institutions really doing much more then standing up for their values. You can't force a society that is built upon freedom of expression to then be told they can't express their feelings towards things. However that withstanding what I do feel though is that things like the constitution, bill of rights, and declaration of independence shouldn't be looked at as old news. Our country was founded up principles and hopefully it will remain so before we hit a complete socialism society. 

[beebskadoo]

Yes. You said that earlier. That is true.

No, the ones who have the most voting power in the US are the Christians (76% or so, I believe, but don't trust wikipedia). Voting -> government -> Legal. We can't exactly make it the religious definition (unconstitutional, via the separation of church and state), but we can vote against measures to allow it beyond the current parameters set by the law. Whether that's right or not, we'll see.

No, not really. They didn't change much. It's just a legalistic way of making it so that the religious side isn't hurt by the legal one. In other words, the legal definition makes it so that the religious one is not defiled (at least the way it's viewed by religious people) for lack of a better word.

I'm not caught up on terms. I do what others do. If the argument for inequality is based in an individual's standpoint, then that's how I view it, because apparently that's what's important to them. 

These decisions weren't made by the populous though. They were Supreme court decisions as were many other Civil rights issues. That aside, some polls put the support of gay marriage over 50 percent nationwide, so that being the majority shouldn't that stand true? Government is for and by the people and the populous shows favor for it so it should be legal regardless of religious implications due to separation of church and state.

[Vitalius]

These decisions weren't made by the populous though. They were Supreme court decisions as were many other Civil rights issues. That aside, some polls put the support of gay marriage over 50 percent nationwide, so that being the majority shouldn't that stand true? Government is for and by the people and the populous shows favor for it so it should be legal regardless of religious implications due to separation of church and state.

What the nation says and what the nation does are two different things. Actions have always spoken louder than words to me.

Those percentages come from polling 1000 people (or 10,000 in some cases) and using them as a base. Sometimes it can be wrong. It might not be, but then that doesn't explain why it's not legalized.

The Supreme Court is there to prevent the populace (majority) and the leaders (minority) from being most powerful. It's a bit more complicated than that, but that's also a simplified way of saying it.

Checks and Balances and whatnot.

[beebskadoo]

What the nation says and what the nation does are two different things. Actions have always spoken louder than words to me.

Those percentages come from polling 1000 people (or 10,000 in some cases) and using them as a base. Sometimes it can be wrong. It might not be, but then that doesn't explain why it's not legalized.

The Supreme Court is there to prevent the populace (majority) and the leaders (minority) from being most powerful. It's a bit more complicated than that, but that's also a simplified way of saying it.

Checks and Balances and whatnot.

That's why we have gay pride rallies and petitions. The world is changing for the good i believe. I understand you have your beliefs and i have mine (lack there of i might add) But we will see in the near future what the population actually wants. But on the issue of polls, I understand they can very well be a misrepresentation of the real statistics however this applies to the Christian statistics. According to polls, Christians have the highest occurrence murder, rape, theft, and prison population and divorce rates... so it goes both ways I suppose. 

[Vitalius]

That's why we have gay pride rallies and petitions. The world is changing for the good i believe. I understand you have your beliefs and i have mine (lack there of i might add) But we will see in the near future what the population actually wants. But on the issue of polls, I understand they can very well be a misrepresentation of the real statistics however this applies to the Christian statistics. According to polls, Christians have the highest occurrence murder, rape, theft, and prison population and divorce rates... so it goes both ways I suppose. 

Well, Jesus didn't come for the "good" people. :P

[beebskadoo]

Well, Jesus didn't come for the "good" people. :P

lol I would love to talk religion in this forum! But the admin overlords(jk admins, love you guys) won't allow it. But like i said before PM me and I'll love to :)

[calarahil]

That's why we have gay pride rallies and petitions. The world is changing for the good i believe. I understand you have your beliefs and i have mine (lack there of i might add) But we will see in the near future what the population actually wants. But on the issue of polls, I understand they can very well be a misrepresentation of the real statistics however this applies to the Christian statistics. According to polls, Christians have the highest occurrence murder, rape, theft, and prison population and divorce rates... so it goes both ways I suppose. 

 

I would just be careful before one would decide that christians per say have the highest occurrence of murder. I never believe much into polls. For example polls show that people are pretty unhappy with Obama. But you know what people will keep supporting him despite his issues at the moment. 100+ million for his trip to Africa thank you sir for using our money (sorry for the side step)

[solosdk]

I don't believe in Gay/Lesbian marriages

[bluepoodleguy]

Regarding crime among so called Christians two New Testament quotes.

 New International Version
1 Corinthians 5  But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who calls himself a Christian who is sexually immoral, or greedy, or an idolater, or verbally abusive, or a drunkard, or a swindler.

New English Translation
  2 Romans 21
 (Y)ou, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? 22 You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? 24 As it is written: “God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”
New International Version

 

From the very beginning the founders of Christianity saw the presence of religious impostors among themselves. If you want to quote statistics of crime among Christians tally the results of the study of the truly pious believers. Further when it comes to criminal behavior in secular states it the government not the citizens that is criminal.In  Nazi Germany there might little killing by private citizens by the state killed millions. In Stalinist Russia during the purges it was the state apparatus that killed millions. During WWII and the invasion of Germany did the Red Army act as a military that followed conventions of the rules of war? No they indulged in an orgy of rape and looting. Consider China during the time of Mao. Millions dead because of government repression. No crime among the secular states? Perhaps it is because these secular nations are police states where every neighbour is a potential informant and any infraction will be detected and result in the harshest of punishment. To sum up a moral code is true regardless if its supporters follow it or not.

[InfinateX]

Hopefully as new, younger politicians get into office there will be less people who are against gay marriage and there will equality all over North America.

[beebskadoo]

I don't believe in Gay/Lesbian marriages

Believe me they exist ;)

[beebskadoo]

Regarding crime among so called Christians two New Testament quotes.

 New International Version

1 Corinthians 5  But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who calls himself a Christian who is sexually immoral, or greedy, or an idolater, or verbally abusive, or a drunkard, or a swindler.

New English Translation

  2 Romans 21

 (Y)ou, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? 22 You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? 24 As it is written: “God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”

New International Version

 

From the very beginning the founders of Christianity saw the presence of religious impostors among themselves. If you want to quote statistics of crime among Christians tally the results of the study of the truly pious believers. Further when it comes to criminal behavior in secular states it the government not the citizens that is criminal.In  Nazi Germany there might little killing by private citizens by the state killed millions. In Stalinist Russia during the purges it was the state apparatus that killed millions. During WWII and the invasion of Germany did the Red Army act as a military that followed conventions of the rules of war? No they indulged in an orgy of rape and looting. Consider China during the time of Mao. Millions dead because of government repression. No crime among the secular states? Perhaps it is because these secular nations are police states where every neighbour is a potential informant and any infraction will be detected and result in the harshest of punishment. To sum up a moral code is true regardless if its supporters follow it or not.

Good people do good things because they are good people not because their beliefs dictate them to. I can quote the bible ALL day and come up with passages that don't fit within the morality today. 

[calarahil]

Good people do good things because they are good people not because their beliefs dictate them to. I can quote the bible ALL day and come up with passages that don't fit within the morality today. 

 

Well see that is the thing though which you kind of go over a bit in what you said. Good people will do good things bad people will do bad things. Religion doesn't push people to do bad things, bad people do bad things. I'm just stating that religion promotes good behavior and that man in general have the ability to do bad things.

[beebskadoo]

Well see that is the thing though which you kind of go over a bit in what you said. Good people will do good things bad people will do bad things. Religion doesn't push people to do bad things, bad people do bad things. I'm just stating that religion promotes good behavior and that man in general have the ability to do bad things.

Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

Stephen Weinberg.

I truly believe this wholeheartedly. 

Religion does push people to do bad things an it sucks that I am unable to give example due to the rules of the forum but PM me if you want to discuss it :) 

[calarahil]

Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

Stephen Weinberg.

I truly believe this wholeheartedly. 

Religion does push people to do bad things an it sucks that I am unable to give example due to the rules of the forum but PM me if you want to discuss it :)

Sure radical religion does certainly. However your opinions will get people to scratch there head I believe. I'll use another example. With guns if people want to hurt someone they will it doesn't matter if they have a gun they could use a knife they could use a car they could use w.e any way you slice it with a means there is a way.

And you are right people would do good things and bad things with or without religion. However the central message behind a lot of faiths is one of promoting a more respectful and more righteous society.

[Glenwing]

Let's not turn this into a discussion on religion.  Stay on topic please.

[calarahil]

Let's not turn this into a discussion on religion.  Stay on topic please.

 

I apologize. I think all that's trying to be said here is that religion is blamed for standing up for what they believe in. In much the same way that the gay/lesbian/and bi movement are. You'll never quite get people to do exactly what you want them to do. However I hope with this movement this equality movement that if anything it promotes respect. And that people can judge themselves for who they are rather than what there sexual orientation is.

[beebskadoo]

Let's not turn this into a discussion on religion.  Stay on topic please.

I've been tiptoeing around the topic for the most part and telling them to PM me for further discussion :)

[Art Vandelay]

What the nation says and what the nation does are two different things. Actions have always spoken louder than words to me.

Those percentages come from polling 1000 people (or 10,000 in some cases) and using them as a base. Sometimes it can be wrong. It might not be, but then that doesn't explain why it's not legalized.

I usually suspect that those polls are wrong or have been done in a way that heavily skews them toward one side.

[beebskadoo]

I usually suspect that those polls are wrong or have been done in a way that heavily skews them toward one side.

They have been in criticism for the past few years. Only statistics that are attainable from some sort of record are actually viable.