Bush approves only of heterosexual marriage

[conjur]

Originally posted by: PatboyX

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: PatboyX

Originally posted by: conjur
I see religion for what it is now. It's a crutch for those who seek to find solace in some great Being to care for us in times of woe. It arose out of ignorance of science and a fear of the unknown.

that, too, is your opinion. all religions are not like the one you "did your time" with. please try and remember that religion is more than a refuge for those weak in their times of need. some people have religion in their life always. it arose out of a true need within an individual. christianity as politics has always seemed to cause more trouble then it is worth. perhaps, we should find a new religion.

I was referring to the origins of religion, or belief in a supernatural being. I was not referring to the current "need" of religion to coddle people.

Perhaps we should dump ALL religion.

so...you believe that if we just began life with "full knowledge" as a species, then there would never have been any religion.

That is certainly a distinct possibility!

I mean, seriously, Ra, the Sun God? Mercury and his chariot, Zeus and his lightning bolts? Noah and an ark with a great flood? puh-leeze. It was born of ignorance of science.

 

[Broohaha]

i have a feeling i missed the best of it but...

/lawn chair
/chips
/coke

 

[NateSLC]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: PatboyX

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: PatboyX

Originally posted by: conjur
I see religion for what it is now. It's a crutch for those who seek to find solace in some great Being to care for us in times of woe. It arose out of ignorance of science and a fear of the unknown.

that, too, is your opinion. all religions are not like the one you "did your time" with. please try and remember that religion is more than a refuge for those weak in their times of need. some people have religion in their life always. it arose out of a true need within an individual. christianity as politics has always seemed to cause more trouble then it is worth. perhaps, we should find a new religion.

I was referring to the origins of religion, or belief in a supernatural being. I was not referring to the current "need" of religion to coddle people.

Perhaps we should dump ALL religion.

so...you believe that if we just began life with "full knowledge" as a species, then there would never have been any religion.

That is certainly a distinct possibility!

I mean, seriously, Ra, the Sun God? Mercury and his chariot, Zeus and his lightning bolts? Noah and an ark with a great flood? puh-leeze. It was born of ignorance of science.

This debate illustrates the obvious intentions of the founding fathers when they identified separation of church and state. People have so many different views on religion that it is impossible to humor one in any form of stable government. So, essentially I consider any religious elements to this gay marriage debate meaningless as far as the state is concerned. I personally don't care if religion A, B, and C choose not to perform gay marriage ceremonies, but that's a completely different subject than this thread.

 

[0roo0roo]

time sex and power

interesting new book with some decent theories on homosexuality and its benifits to a group of people amoung other things. from why we have left handed people/bald people/color blind people at about the same % and how thats benificial to a group etc.

i'm still reading it, but heres an interesting tidbit. colorblind people might be better at spotting camoflaged animals. one of the theories is that having one hunter in your group that can do this adds a nice advantage as a whole. and supposedly the military has always known this.

 

[Atlantean]

Send him to Canada, we can teach him a thing or two about marriage.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Atlantean
Send him to Canada, we can teach him a thing or two about marriage.

My pleasure!

Delta flight 983 out of Dulles on Monday at 8:30!

 

[Netopia]

Joe, can you then truly call any man "honest"? Or do lies differ in their severity in your eyes? I think you'll find that God says a sin is a sin is a sin. Maybe you should pray about it some.

Actually, I agree whole-heartedly with what you just said. Biblically however, there is a higher standard for those who hold authority in the church.

This debate illustrates the obvious intentions of the founding fathers when they identified separation of church and state. People have so many different views on religion that it is impossible to humor one in any form of stable government. So, essentially I consider any religious elements to this gay marriage debate meaningless as far as the state is concerned. I personally don't care if religion A, B, and C choose not to perform gay marriage ceremonies, but that's a completely different subject than this thread.

So Nate, let me ask you this then, to clarify for my own sake. IF there were a national referendum on the issue of Gay Marriage where people had to put their reasons for voting one way or another, and it was voted down and the majority of voters said that they just thought it was bad for society, that would be alright, but if the majority said that the Bible said it was wrong then it wouldn't be alright? That was a horrible sentence.... basically what I'm asking is that if there was the same law in two states but one was passed for religious reasons and the other was passed for social reasons, you would be ok with the law in one state but against the law in the other even though the wording of the two laws was exactly the same?

joe

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Netopia

Joe, can you then truly call any man "honest"? Or do lies differ in their severity in your eyes? I think you'll find that God says a sin is a sin is a sin. Maybe you should pray about it some.

Actually, I agree whole-heartedly with what you just said. Biblically however, there is a higher standard for those who hold authority in the church.

This debate illustrates the obvious intentions of the founding fathers when they identified separation of church and state. People have so many different views on religion that it is impossible to humor one in any form of stable government. So, essentially I consider any religious elements to this gay marriage debate meaningless as far as the state is concerned. I personally don't care if religion A, B, and C choose not to perform gay marriage ceremonies, but that's a completely different subject than this thread.

So Nate, let me ask you this then, to clarify for my own sake. IF there were a national referendum on the issue of Gay Marriage where people had to put their reasons for voting one way or another, and it was voted down and the majority of voters said that they just thought it was bad for society, that would be alright, but if the majority said that the Bible said it was wrong then it wouldn't be alright? That was a horrible sentence.... basically what I'm asking is that if there was the same law in two states but one was passed for religious reasons and the other was passed for social reasons, you would be ok with the law in one state but against the law in the other even though the wording of the two laws was exactly the same?

joe

Never liked answering a question with a question but suppose a new religion arose that was based upon the premise that homosexual relationships were the norm. How do you think society would accept any laws catering to them?

 

[Netopia]

Never liked answering a question with a question but suppose a new religion arose that was based upon the premise that homosexual relationships were the norm. How do you think society would accept any laws catering to them?

I don't think that society would accept/create laws like that... at least not yet. When there is sufficient change to provide cultural normalcy and some history/tradition in that area, then society probably wouldn't care... but not until then.

Ok... I answered the question... how about mine?

Joe

 

[NateSLC]

Sorry for the long delay. I was traveling and without the internet. Anyway, as far as your question that poses social/state agenda versus religious agenda... Religions are free to set any policy they wish on themselves but not the public. Public policy is based on public need and the constitution. Although I agree that religious agendas commonly mirror what is needed as public policy they are indeed two separate things.

Therefore, if public policy were to allow gay marriage and your religion were to not allow it. So be it. Your religion does not have to provide the religious component of that marriage which is not offered by the state. You could still go to church "knowing" that your religion deems it invalid/disgusting/sinful or whatever. On the flip side, if religion were able to dictate the state's policy.... No go for obvious reasons.

To sum up... I think the equality of influence over public policy between the people (checked and empowered by the Constitution) and religion, that you allure to in your question, simply does not exist.

Edit: Commas and minor fixes to my rambling.