66 replies to this topic

[Will]

I'm pretty convinced its not as bad as you think. Most people are more individualist than conservative.

Agreed. I think most many Americans are actually quite open to the idea of gay marriage.

[Hawk]

To restate some of hawks invised thread, removing the flames, Typically this section is to be treated a bit more mature. Attacking someone or there views, even in a joking manner, will not usually be tolerated as the person the post was directed at may laugh, but the next person may be completely insulted.

Try to stay on topic and keep your post a little more mature when they are generally a more serious topic / thread.

Also keep the flames off the boards. I've removed the posts that where generally off topic or flaming and expect this to be the end of the argument between you two.

Oh... Now you show up. A couple hours after my report and post. Yeah, good job.

However Sonic is right in the sense that you (Hawk) are the grumpiest 'grumpy old man' winner ever.

And taking shots at me will make me less grumpy? Once again, good job. I'm not a very happy camper when I'm forced to be defensive because of comments like that. Way to go. Top notch job by Kitsune.

[Ives]

I'm pretty grumpy too. There's quite a handful of cynics on this site, not just Hawk, man. I'll vouch for the cat because I can understand its pretty easy to get pissed off about all the little inconveniences which this site can provide. Plus, we need guys like him, because otherwise I wouldn't get my fix of drama.

[Frizzle]

It shouldn't be enforced by the government, ultimately. It's not their job to enforce other religious dogma, and as such it should be up to the church and how the individual wishes to identify what their partnership is. I think if you want civil unions, ultimately it should be civil unions for everyone - straights, gays, etcetera. Just a way to formally recognize a partnership for the benefits, then you can call it what you want.

True there should be little involvement from government when dealing with religioin but where does it end? Does the government not get involved when a man kills or is killed over religion. The Government should be involved in everything, espically if the people decide it so.

[Hawk]

You take pride in being a grumpy old man, I considered it more of a compliment. Also, if you really took offence to my comment, you would not have replied so calmly

I only replied so calmly because I'm talking to Black Flame right now about why I shouldn't snap. Instead I loaded it with sarcastic comments.

[Ives]

True there should be little involvement from government when dealing with religioin but where does it end? Does the government not get involved when a man kills or is killed over religion. The Government should be involved in everything, espically if the people decide it so.

Theres a difference between murder, rape, etc. and the minor problems like how a church should react to homosexuality. Society does have certain standards set in stone, and that's not to interfere in others lives, not a strictly religious idea, and a logical one at that. If someone tries to kill people in the name of religious issues (such as the 1996 olympics), it should be treated as attempted murder and attempted chaos, regardless of their motive unless they are mentally ill to the point where they can't really function in society. A crime is a crime and is especially not productive, even if you want to say morality is subjective.

Edited by Athean, 05 March 2008 - 11:58 AM.

[Amagius]

Under the law--constitutional and otherwise, it should exist.
Under the primary religion of the U.S., it should not.

There you have it. Also, in response to someone bringing up the laws of the Levites, like eating shellfish, being compared to homosexuality, during the New Testament, there were certain ideas that Jesus upheld, like the Ten Commandments and the condemnation of homosexuality. While it is still potentially valid, the New Testament is the primary source of Christian doctrine.

[Frizzle]

Theres a difference between murder, rape, etc. and the minor problems like how a church should react to homosexuality. Society does have certain standards set in stone, and that's not to interfere in others lives, not a strictly religious idea, and a logical one at that. If someone tries to kill people in the name of religious issues (such as the 1996 olympics), it should be treated as attempted murder and attempted chaos, regardless of their motive unless they are mentally ill to the point where they can't really function in society. A crime is a crime and is especially not productive, even if you want to say morality is subjective.

Again, I still firmly believe that is a religion's right to decide what they believe in. Just like the Cub Scouts they can ban homosexuals or not marry them in their house of worship because it's a firm religious belief. Majority rules.

[Amagius]

Again, I still firmly believe that is a religion's right to decide what they believe in. Just like the Cub Scouts they can ban homosexuals or not marry them in their house of worship because it's a firm religious belief. Majority rules.

The laws of the government should neuter the religion; it should not be the religious law neutering the government. Now, I realize this comes off very Orwellian, but as long as the Constitution and Bill of Rights exist, I believe that no religion will be controlled or stopped from honoring their religious entity.

[Frizzle]

We're not talking about either the bill of rights or the constitution here, we're talking in general since most goverments aren't stupid enough to right down every right and law in their power.

But a government has to rule by the people and if the people should get what the people want.

[sonic]

I only replied so calmly because I'm talking to Black Flame right now about why I shouldn't snap. Instead I loaded it with sarcastic comments.

Your probably the most mature person I have ever met.

[Amagius]

We're not talking about either the bill of rights or the constitution here, we're talking in general since most goverments aren't stupid enough to right down every right and law in their power.

But a government has to rule by the people and if the people should get what the people want.

Man, I hardly understand this post, I'll just use an oft-visited anecdote: If the majority of people want slavery, say specifically for those of the Mexican ethnicity, should it be allowed? Ethically, is this right? (I would say no, but, of course, ethically, slavery and gay marriage are not alike.) Lawfully, is this right? (It is not anymore. Law changed to ban slavery. Yet, I make the point that, under law, gay marriage should be allowed and is an infringement of rights.)

Perhaps if the arguments presented against gay marriage were non-Christianity related, may be the banning of gay marriage would be understandable.

[Grizzly]

I'm pretty convinced its not as bad as you think. Most people are more individualist than conservative.

I'm talking about the government. American citizens in general are liberal, but the government is incredibly conservative.

[Black Flame]

Your probably the most mature person I have ever met.

Sonic, Cory already asked you to stop. If you or Hawk continue, warns will be handed out.

[Bryan]

Carry out the argument somewhere else on the interwebs. I don't want to see more of this shit.

[sonic]

Carry out the argument somewhere else on the interwebs. I don't want to see more of this shit.

Bryan I will fucking slit your fucking throat.
Then I will cry cause your dead, but atleast there wont be anymore of those comments.

[Bryan]

Bryan I will fucking slit your fucking throat.
Then I will cry cause your dead, but atleast there wont be anymore of those comments.

I don't know whether to rejoice or to fear for my life. Either way, I'm locking my back door tonight.