Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 11,151-11,200 of 12,463

[Shanna]

cHriS wrote: "Shanna wrote: I did I'm still waiting for you to explain how homosexual marriage devalues hetero marriage, "

devalues? is that your word or mine?"

Does it matter? I believe you used it or it's equivalent. Answer the question.

[Shanna]

cHriS wrote: "cerebus wrote: are there any studies around the issues you raise?."

Politicians on both sides are saying this, it has been a news topic for the last few days and yes this is the views of many, inc..."

I understand what you're saying I'm asking for evidence of this slippery slope? In the countries that have legalized gay marriage there has been no such descent. That the alteration of the concept of marriage in these countries the societal collapse that you imply is imminent or in progress doesn't appear to be happening.

[[deleted user]]

Leiah wrote: "Clarification please: what world unrest isn't based, in your opinion, on religion?"

For today, currently ...

Mexico, drug war

Columbia, government and FARC

Peru, Shining Path

Also, I don't think all of the conflict in Africa is religious, but I'd need to research it for sure.

I'd also add ...

Korea, ... threat of ... consequences to the people of NK

Cyber-spying


A boatload from the past.

[Maria]

I have to say that in a way I agree with Chris - family life and family values have gone so far down hill in our society - and children have been the ones to suffer.

Having said that, I don't think that the sex of the couple has a lot to do with that. I think that two people (two men, two women, man and woman) who are in a committed, monogamous relationship (call it "married" or not) can and should provide a loving, secure home for children.

Having it be a man and a woman vs. same sex does not guarantee that loving, secure home. The home could be horrible or wonderful, no matter what sex the two parents are.

My cousins (one male and one female) were raised by two women, not gay, just two unmarried sisters, their aunts, from about age 8 into adulthood. It was a loving, caring home with lots of Italian traditions, lots of family around, and they are happy, well adjusted people now with kids of their own. And they were raised by "same sex" parents pretty much their entire lives.

So, again, it depends entirely on the people involved and how they treat their children and what kind of family life they provide - not at all to do with what sex they are.

[Robin]

Maria, I agree with you it doesn't matter what gender are the parents, as long as the child is raised in a healthy loving home. I guess it is true that it does take a village to raise a child, meaning the extended family as well. Good point.

[Leiah]

Thank you for a thoughtful post. I was raised in a horrible heterosexual relationship. As a cop and later a crisis counselor, I have seen situations in heterosexual based families with children that would make your blood run ice - and you would never sleep again. I never, however, saw that with a homosexual couple, though it may have just been the particular situations I saw (hundreds). The same-sex couples that I know who have children are totally loving and devoted to their children. The so-called "normal" couples? Uh, not so much.

Point being, knee-jerk reactions based on religion are not only irresponsible, they can be deadly. Just because you may want things to be one way, that doesn't mean that things ARE that way.

[cerebus]

Of, fair enough cHriS.....for me it comes down to your preference to maintain the current definition of the word is insufficient to convince me that the change should not be made. I also understand my position does not change yours. I will continue to support the modification of the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, and if in the future there is a push for further changes I will make a similar evaluation, based on the available evidence. Changing the definition to include same-sex marriage does not by itself make any other later changes easier or more likely. As far as I'm concerned same-sex marriage passes the "do no harm" test....nobody is harmed by allowing it. That your objection is based not solely on same-sex issues, but on the word itself doesn't alter that view.

[[deleted user]]

cerebus wrote: "Changing the definition to include same-sex marriage does not by itself make any other later changes easier or more likely."


Do we know that? For certain?

I wonder what the legal minds say. I don't know the answer. Would they agree with you or not? But, I know I've not seen any definitive legal opinions. Have you? If so, could you share.

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "cerebus wrote: "Changing the definition to include same-sex marriage does not by itself make any other later changes easier or more likely."


Do we know that? For certain?

I wonder what the le..."
Why would it? No, I don't have any legal opinions to point to, if there were they would be specific to particular countries. If the original claim is that making one change will make it easier for future changes, then I would expect there to be some reason or evidence for this. In the absence of that I can't see why the claim would have validity. In the areas where the change has already been made to allow same-sex marriage, have there been any further changes pushed through?

[[deleted user]]

cerebus wrote: "Why would it? No, I don't have any legal opinions to point to, if there were they would be specific to particular countries. If the original claim is that making one change will make it easier for future changes, then I would expect there to be some reason or evidence for this. In the absence of that I can't see why the claim would have validity. In the areas where the change has already been made to allow same-sex marriage, have there been any further changes pushed through? "

You're aware that we've gone down this path before. Further, you're aware some argue that it would, indeed, make it easier for future changes to be made. It's called precedent.

I don't know for sure either way. I'm not a lawyer or a judge. Unless you're a lawyer or a judge, you don't know for sure either. Right?

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "cerebus wrote: "Why would it? No, I don't have any legal opinions to point to, if there were they would be specific to particular countries. If the original claim is that making one change will mak..."
So is the assumption then that the current definition has always been the definition and there is no earlier precedent for change?

[[deleted user]]

cerebus wrote: "So is the assumption then that the current definition has always been the definition and there is no earlier precedent for change? "


Actually, I'm not in the mood to make assumptions.

I've no idea if the current definition has always been the definition. No clue. Would have to research it.... Do you know? Would you like to share?

All I'm saying is ....

Unless someone here is a lawyer or a judge or has some good sites for legal opinions that they'd like to share, we don't know, definitively, that it wouldn't make further changes easier. There is such a thing as precedent.

[Travis]

cerebus wrote: "Shannon wrote: "cerebus wrote: "Changing the definition to include same-sex marriage does not by itself make any other later changes easier or more likely."


Do we know that? For certain?

I wo..."

We survived interracial marriage and letting women vote, I've yet to hear anything specific concerning gay marriage that makes it different.
Can anyone give an example about how gay marriage is going to cause this bad change?

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "cerebus wrote: "So is the assumption then that the current definition has always been the definition and there is no earlier precedent for change? "


Actually, I'm not in the mood to make assumpti..."
From wikipedia: "The United States has had a history of marriage restriction laws. Many states enacted miscegenation laws which were first introduced in the late 17th century in the slave-holding colonies of Virginia (1691) and Maryland (1692) and lasted until 1967 (until it was overturned via Loving v. Virginia). Many of these states restricted several minorities from marrying whites. For example, Alabama, Arkansas, and Oklahoma banned Blacks in particular. States such as Mississippi and Missouri banned Blacks and Asians. States such as North Carolina and South Carolina banned Blacks and Native Americans, and some states such as Georgia, South Carolina, and Virginia banned all non-whites."
So the precedents for change, to allow mixed-race marriages, don't appear to be making the currently requested change for same-sex marriages particularly easy. So why would the change to allow same-sex marriage make any further changes suddenly easier?

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "Can anyone give an example about how gay marriage is going to cause this bad change? "


Women getting the vote doesn't pertain to marriage ... doesn't set precedent for marriage.

Whether or not someone can come up with an example regarding gay marriage and further changes is neither here nor there. We're aware, because we discussed it, that people make the claim. It would be interesting to know what our great legal minds have to say about this. Lawyers and judges and their opinions. That would be here or there.

[[deleted user]]

Look at #11....

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/...

Sotomayor asked the question, so it's a valid question. Olson has a very thoughtful and interesting response.

I, for one, am waiting to see how they decide. I imagine this point will be part of their opinion.

[[deleted user]]

cerebus wrote: "From wikipedia: "The United States has had a history of marriage restriction laws. Many states enacted miscegenation laws which were first introduced in the late 17th century in the slave-holding colonies of Virginia (1691) and Maryland (1692) and lasted until 1967 (until it was overturned via Loving v. Virginia). Many of these states restricted several minorities from marrying whites. For example, Alabama, Arkansas, and Oklahoma banned Blacks in particular. States such as Mississippi and Missouri banned Blacks and Asians. States such as North Carolina and South Carolina banned Blacks and Native Americans, and some states such as Georgia, South Carolina, and Virginia banned all non-whites.""

See the article cited in Post 11368.... I'm going to wait for the Supreme Court decision, allowing them to make the definitive judgment.

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "See the article cited in Post 11368.... I'm going to wait for the Supreme Court decision, allowing them to make the definitive judgment. "
Yup, and nothing in there indicates that changing the definition to include same-sex marriage will make it any easier to change the definition further down the track.

[cHriS]

cerebus wrote: Changing the definition to include same-sex marriage does not by itself make any other later changes easier or more likely.

It certainly could make future changes easier. As I have previously showed with the 'universal benefit' example.

I don't know much about the American 'gun laws' but how easy would it be to change the right to keep and bear arms?


cerebus wrote: As far as I'm concerned same-sex marriage passes the "do no harm" test....nobody is harmed by allowing it. "

That is not a very good litmus test. We can change anything as long as we do not harm anyone? Changing the law to stop the ownership of guns in the US will not harm anyone.

[cHriS]

Shanna wrote: I understand what you're saying I'm asking for evidence of this slippery slope? In the countries that have legalized gay marriage there has been no such descent. That the alteration of the concept of marriage in these countries the societal collapse that you imply is imminent or in progress doesn't appear to be happening.
"

There is no slippery slope, but you suggesting there is shows that you do not understand what I'm saying.

If you are pointing to the countries that have legalized gay marriage as some sort of evidence then two points;

1. It is early days to be able to make any sort of long term evaluation.

2. All that it would show is that it may work in some countries and not in others.

On a more general note, are we trying to make the world as one with one set of rules and one set of laws. What is right for one country may not be right for another. Should we, for example be trying to stop the US from using the death sentence?

[[deleted user]]

cerebus wrote: "Yup, and nothing in there indicates that changing the definition to include same-sex marriage will make it any easier to change the definition further down the track. "


Ahahahaha....

Maybe. But, ultimately, you don't know that yet ... unless you're on the Supreme Court and you're discussing it this very moment. Or, unless you're a lawyer or a judge who knows your stuff. Otherwise, .... You're guessing.


(Olson is just giving one side, by the way. While I find the argument he made interesting, I wonder how they'll come down on "status" ....)

[cHriS]

Shanna wrote:Does it matter? I believe you used it or it's equivalent. Answer the question.
..."

Oh but it does matter, to say you 'you believe' I said something.

I do not want to see marriage changed in any way. FULL STOP. Anything that happens as a result of that, is unavoidable. A sort of 'catch 22'. If there were a compromise that may help, I don't know.

I believe ALL couples should have the same rights. In the UK they don't. Same sex couples have ALL the rights a married couple have, but a man and woman living together as partners do NOT have the same rights.

I do not believe it is a 'right' that same sex couples can marry. If a country passes a law that is fine. It is no more a right than it is my right to own a gun.

[[deleted user]]

cHriS wrote: "cerebus wrote: As far as I'm concerned same-sex marriage passes the "do no harm" test....nobody is harmed by allowing it. "

That is not a very good litmus test. We can change anything as long as we do not harm anyone? Changing the law to stop the ownership of guns in the US will not harm anyone. "


Harm according to whom....

That's not a black and white thing and is something legislators spend an immense amount of time on. They actually, when they write and pass legislation, define words and phrases such as this. "Harm" and "do no harm" ... talk to lawyers and take testimony, etc....

(Well, ... unless it's the health care bill. Then, they pass it in order to find out what's in it.)

This stuff isn't as easy as people think it might be.

[[deleted user]]

cHriS wrote: "On a more general note, are we trying to make the world as one with one set of rules and one set of laws. What is right for one country may not be right for another. Should we, for example be trying to stop the US from using the death sentence? "


Oh, ....

Now, that's an interesting topic, isn't it?

[Shanna]

cHriS wrote: "There is no slippery slope, but you suggesting there is shows that you do not understand what I'm saying.

If you are pointing to the countries that have legalized gay marriage as some sort of evidence then two points;

1. It is early days to be able to make any sort of long term evaluation.

2. All that it would show is that it may work in some countries and not in others.

On a more general note, are we trying to make the world as one with one set of rules and one set of laws. What is right for one country may not be right for another. Should we, for example be trying to stop the US from using the death sentence? "

If there is no slippery slope why are you concerned about "future changes", surely you'd only be concerned about potential negative changes, so there is your slippery slope.

The Netherlands have had gay marriage legalized since 2001 no noticeable descent in to anarchy there, I think 12 years would be enough to see something don't you?

I think cultural relativity for morality is wrong, I think people who stand back and permit women to be stoned, or little girls to under go FGM or little boys too, because it's a cultural thing are reprehensible. Cultural denial of human equity is disgusting and tolerance of intolerance is also.

[Shanna]

cHriS wrote :"Oh but it does matter, to say you 'you believe' I said something.

I do not want to see marriage changed in any way. FULL STOP. Anything that happens as a result of that, is unavoidable. A sort of 'catch 22'. If there were a compromise that may help, I don't know.

I believe ALL couples should have the same rights. In the UK they don't. Same sex couples have ALL the rights a married couple have, but a man and woman living together as partners do NOT have the same rights.

I do not believe it is a 'right' that same sex couples can marry. If a country passes a law that is fine. It is no more a right than it is my right to own a gun.

Do you deny saying it?

The fact that you can't sell your daughter for livestock means we've already redefined marriage.

Men and women living together as partners have chosen not to marry, not to enter into the civil social contract that is marriage. That is a choice, an option they have one denied homosexual couples.
I don't understand your attachment to the word, if homosexuals have the same rights as heteros why can they call it what it is, in a social context a marriage...?

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Shanna wrote: I understand what you're saying I'm asking for evidence of this slippery slope? In the countries that have legalized gay marriage there has been no such descent. That the alteration o..."

So, for which countries is being against same sex marriage a good thing?

[Mary]

Chris' arguments, like the last time we made this circle, change each time a valid point is made. He's against the use if the word, no he doesn't like it that in the UK heteros cannot have a civil union, no, it's degrading to hetero marriage, no, its that society ( meaning heteros) have already messed up marriage and family so much already, and again, No, it's the use of the word........ I'm going to say it, and it's going to make Chris mad, but I think he just finds the idea....icky. That's my opinion.

[Dan's]

withdrawing my comment

[cHriS]

Shanna wrote:I don't understand your attachment to the word, if homosexuals have the same rights as heteros why can they call it what it is, in a social context a marriage...?
"

...and I think that is your problem, not understanding.

Maybe if you were to understand the other side of an argument it would help, even if you don't agree.

[cHriS]

Mary wrote: Chris' arguments, like the last time we made this circle, change each time a valid point is made. He's against the use if the word, no he doesn't like it that in the UK heteros cannot have a civil union, no, it's degrading to hetero marriage, no, its that society ( meaning heteros) have already messed up marriage and family so much already, and again, No, it's the use of the word........

You have just taken everything out of context, I though you were better than to resort to that Mary. And degrading is Shanna's word not mine.


Mary wrote: I'm going to say it, and it's going to make Chris mad, but I think he just finds the idea....icky. That's my opinion.
."

...well Mary that is one big step, you have made, saying that. But instead of covering up what you really mean behind the comical word 'icky' why don't you just say what you mean, that way we won't be at cross purposes.

[Shanna]

cHriS wrote: "Shanna wrote:I don't understand your attachment to the word, if homosexuals have the same rights as heteros why can they call it what it is, in a social context a marriage...?
"

...and I think th..."


I can see the other side of the argument, I don't agree nor do I see any reasonable justification for it. And as you keep avoiding offering any... any that isn't shot down.
Also you haven't address the Netherlands twelve year legalisation of marriage and their apparent lack of societal breakdown...

Degrading is my word?

[cHriS]

Travis wrote: So, for which countries is being against same sex marriage a good thing?
"

I have no idea and I do not see how that is relevant. And anyway the question does not really make sense.

[Mary]

You do not see how other human beings on this planet deal with an issue, as having any relevance? See thats the kind if answer that brings about my " icky" comment.
Really, is your view so myopic that it can only be applied to one country, or one person ( you) or is my other assertion correct? You find homosexuality abnormal but are afraid to just say it. I personally find sex a weird, although enjoyable, thing for people to do. While I do not personally want to know details of anyone's sex life, I do not feel it is a basis to deny anyone rights.

[cHriS]

Shanna wrote: If there is no slippery slope why are you concerned about "future changes", surely you'd only be concerned about potential negative changes, so there is your slippery slope.

If you are using my concern about 'future changes', that is fine, but you have had to add/change it to 'slippery slope' because some how 'slippery slope' sounds somewhat seedy and suggests connotations that were not there in my previous reply, then you are doing what mary did.

Mt previous reply stated.. that you allow one change now, more will follow.

Shanna wrote: The Netherlands have had gay marriage legalized since 2001 no noticeable descent in to anarchy there, I think 12 years would be enough to see something don't you?

With restrictions and opposition to it. But that is not relevant anyway. I am speaking for the UK, what other countries do is up to them, those same sex marriages whether from the Netherlands or Canada are not recognised in the UK.

Shanna wrote:I think cultural relativity for morality is wrong, I think people who stand back and permit women to be stoned, or little girls to under go FGM or little boys too, because it's a cultural thing are reprehensible. Cultural denial of human equity is disgusting and tolerance of intolerance is also.
..."

Apples and oranges. You are not comparing apples with apples, you are using emotive language for effect.

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: So, for which countries is being against same sex marriage a good thing?
"

I have no idea and I do not see how that is relevant. And anyway the question does not really make sense."

You mention that what might be right for one country wouldn't be right for another.

So, I was just wondering which country being anti-gay marriage would be right for?

I figure if I keep asking for a specific example to all these broad, vague statements you keep making I might catch you off guard and you might actually give one.
No luck so far.

[cHriS]

Travis wrote: I figure if I keep asking for a specific example to all these broad, vague statements you keep making I might catch you off guard and you might actually give one.
No luck so far. ..."

I understand, you are trying to trip me up but your are not having much luck.

That is because I have explained my position and if I had made any broad, vague statements, why not just ask what you want to know and I will elaborate. But you know I haven't.

You, Shanna and Mary seen unable to grasp the fact that many many people including myself, do not want the word 'marriage' used for anything other than a male and a female.

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: I figure if I keep asking for a specific example to all these broad, vague statements you keep making I might catch you off guard and you might actually give one.
No luck so far. ..."..."

No, not trip you up, just get you from the vague to the specific.
you keep making statements about how change will be bad and devalue stuff, but that's all you do.

it's alot of 'change leads to change' ( which is true, but you keep assuming different equals bad), but when people counter with examples of change that wasn't bad or countries that have same sex marriage that haven't devolved into 'mass hysteria, dogs and cats living together!' you dodge with 'well, you don't understand' or some more vague notions of the value of family.


I grasp the idea of people being against gay marriage and wanting to keep their special word.
Not agreeing and not understanding are two different things.

[cHriS]

Shannon wrote: This stuff isn't as easy as people think it might be. ."

It's not. But I think cerebus is over simplifying things by his 'no harm' rule. We would no longer have to debate a topic on it's merits, just on a
no harm rule. Phew :)

[Mary]

Chris,
Can you be specific.. You say in the UK that same sex couples can have civil union and marriage but heteros cannot... So what rights, specifically, are denied to heteros who can't have a civil union? Inheritance? Child custody? Life or death decisions? I really am I interested in what is denied to hetero couple who choose not to marry. Can you explain?

[Mary]

From what I can read, civil partnerships were created for same sex couples with all the rights as opposite couples, only they were not allowed a religious element. Then in 2010, they were allowed a religious element.
Cohabiting couples of either sexual pairing have no real rights unless they take the legal step for civil partnership or for heteros marriage.

So you are saying because the civil partnership can have a religious blessing that they have more rights?
Are heteros forced to only have religious ceremony? If not, I see no difference as you claim, am I missing something?

[Travis]

Mary wrote: "From what I can read, civil partnerships were created for same sex couples with all the rights as opposite couples, only they were not allowed a religious element. Then in 2010, they were allowed a..."

At least, as far as the US is concerned, it sounds like you got it right.
basically gay couples want equal rights, rather than special rights.
Not that being married isn't special...

I still think the religious element is a church by church deal.
But, since the republicans keep informing me gays are a godless lot, that shouldn't be too much of a problem.

[Mary]

I think that Chris keeps saying that hetero couples in UK have more rights... But from what I can find, that's not true. In order for any type of couple to have rights, they have to make a legal commitment
. Civil partnership for same-sex partners and marriage for opposite sex. All rights same. Just different name
Is he objecting to the law allowing same sex partnerships a religious blessing as well?
Unless heteros are ONLY allowed a marriage in a church and not a courthouse, thenI fail to see what Chris is talking about

[cHriS]

Mary wrote: You do not see how other human beings on this planet deal with an issue, as having any relevance? See that’s the kind if answer that brings about my " icky" comment.

You are back tracking now, that is not what you meant at all, otherwise you would have just said it in the first place.

Mary wrote: Really, is your view so myopic that it can only be applied to one country, or one person ( you) or is my other assertion correct?

Mary you seem to read what you want into thing, rather than read what I said. What I say I mean, I do not have to hide meanings within sentences, for you to decode.

You are confusing the rights of same sex couples with marriage. The two are completely separate. I have no issue with equal rights for everybody, but I and 50% of my country do not see the 'marriage' bit as rights. Once passed by law it becomes a right, as in Canada. But that 'right' in Canada is not recognised as a 'right' in the UK or I guess some or all of the US. A same sex couple who were married in Canada would only be recognised as having a civil partnership in the UK.

It is not for me to suggest to other countries what laws they should have.

Mary wrote: You find homosexuality abnormal but are afraid to just say it.

It is abnormal, but you are using the word in this context in a derogatory way to suggest I have an issue with gay people. You are suggesting here that abnormal is 'bad'. To gay people 'straight' may be abnormal.

To use your word 'icky' which you back tracked on. Seeing two men kissing in the street or on TV, to me is (your word) icky. But I also appreciate that we are different and I guess future generations will see that as a normal thing.

Mary wrote: I personally find sex a weird,.

....tell us why?
Mary wrote:
While I do not personally want to know details of anyone's sex life, I do not feel it is a basis to deny anyone rights.

Neither do I, but I do want to know about your 'weird'.

[cHriS]

Mary wrote: I think that Chris keeps saying that hetero couples in UK have more rights...

No I don't.

Mary wrote: In order for any type of couple to have rights, they have to make a legal commitment
. Civil partnership for same-sex partners and marriage for opposite sex. All rights same. Just different name

Correct. BUT IF YOU ARE A MALE AND FEMALE LIVING TOGETHER WHO DO NOT WANT TO GET MARRIED, you are NOT allowed to have a civil partnership. So no rights, even if they have lived together for years.

By allowing a 'same sex' marriage, you would then discriminating against a straight couple who do not want to get married and so have no rights.

Mary wrote: Is he objecting to the law allowing same sex partnerships a religious blessing as well?

No.

Mary wrote: Unless heteros are ONLY allowed a marriage in a church and not a courthouse, then I fail to see what Chris is talking about

A civil partnership is to give that couple equal rights. The same rights as a married couple without the marriage. A blessing a ceremony after, yes, if they want one, but not marriage. Opposite sex couples can't have this.

[Leiah]

There are a lot of good points here, as well as some that are rather strange. Not everyone is going to agree with me, but here goes. I don't mean to offend anyone, though I am sure I will. Please know that:

1. I was raised Baptist and went to church for many years
2. I have read both the Bible and the Koran, as well as several other religious texts

Here is the thing.

1. The Bible was written HUMANS based upon works by HUMANS
2. Huge portions of the Bible have been rewritten several times across history. Many of these changes were made based upon the actions of various Christian leaders, pointedly Catholic Popes, based upon their particular personal needs. Church leaders have indulged in every sort of “twist” known to man, including homosexuality and pedophilia throughout time and find ways to excuse the behaviour up to and including re-writing portions of religious texts in order to conform to their needs.
3. Many of these changes dealt with marriage, as the Second Lateran Council in 1139 introduced the discipline (not doctrine) of mandatory priestly celibacy in the Latin Rite Church. Before that religious leaders married and had relationships of all sorts, including homosexual. It is interesting to note that nowhere in the Bible does it say that church officials cannot marry.
4. The Bible was written at a period when the Romans were cruel and abusive rulers. They were gluttons, who indulged in every sort of excess possible while ruling with extreme brutality.
5. The perfect way to create a religion to give the downtrodden “hope” is to take everything about the oppressor and turn it on it's head. Therefore, “excess” of all types would be exactly what the “new” religion would abhor. Gluttony, homosexuality, multiple-partners, anything that the Romans indulged in would be deemed unacceptable within the new religion.
6. The Bible was written over a period of 1600 years. The first five books of the Bible are referred to as the Torah, and were written by Moses around 1500 B.C. The second section of the Bible, called the New Testament, was written immediately following the time of Jesus. He died around A.D. 33, and the writing began between A.D. 45 and A.D. 55 and continued until around A.D. 90. The Bible circulated in the original languages of Hebrew and Greek, and for the 1,000 years of the Dark & Middle Ages when the Bible was only available in Latin. During this time only the very wealthy were allowed to read. If only those in power can read it . . .
7. John Wycliffe produced the first English language copy of the Bible in the 1380's AD. Over the following periods Kings and Bishops fought, hard, to keep the Bible out of the hands of the general population. Please see http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-eng... for further information.

My point is, the Bible has been changed, rewritten, broken apart and put back together many, many times. This all comes back to my first point. The Bible was written by Humans. Humans do things, whether they mean to or not, for their own reasons. We ALL put our own twist on interpretations, it is human nature. We ALL have our own beliefs and we ALL need something to give us meaning. The problem is, all of us, whether Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist or Other, depend upon writings which came about in ancient times. Superstition, brutality, poverty, were rampant. People needed something, anything, to hold onto, to give them hope that the suffering in their lives had some point, that they had something to look forward to. Therefore, in this new religion, suffering was godly, as was hatred of anything considered 'excessive' such as gluttony, homosexuality, etc. Anything the rulers do the new peasant religion will find unholy.

All these ideas are Old, old and based upon superstition and the writings of Humans of the time. The rules were written in reaction to a brutal government, not for any other reason. You can talk all you want about 'god-given' but it still comes down to human writings. As such, it is very very difficult to find that anything that was written should be automatically taken as “gospel”. I am sure I offended many of you with that statement, however, I am a REALIST. Humans wrote it, and even if it truly was a “Divine Gift” it was still interpreted by humans – who, again, have their own agendas.

I find it interesting that so many people who claim to be 'religious' and speak of a 'loving' god are so hateful, prejudiced, brutal and unreasonable to anyone who believes differently than they do. They will kill other humans in the name of anti-abortion and call it godlike and yet fight contraception and education. They hate homosexuals based upon these old writings which had their point in conditions that no longer exist. Over time, humans have found a basis for the most horrific of deeds in scripture. Slavery, murder, holy war, the slaughter of whole cultures. Maybe it is time to wake up and smell the hatred, to move away from the brutality and hatred of the Old Testament and more into the love and acceptance taught by the prophet Jesus. For example, my favorites: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” and “The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks.”

[Mary]

Chris... It is my understanding that any couple of any sexual grouping, that doesn't want register legally as a civil partnership or marriage, has no rights. Is that not correct? No one who refused legal certification has rights. So I do not understand your argument... Unless you object to word marriage, not the actual rights given.

[cHriS]

Leiah wrote: I don't mean to offend anyone"

..... you have it about right, but we should not try and judge past generations to much by todays standards.

.....also the hateful, prejudiced, brutal folks come in all shapes and sizes and not all are religious.

[Mary]

Chris I'm not going to explain the birds and the bees to you. Suffice it to say that's matung requires the joining of body
parts with other people.... That's weird. It's enjoyable... But just a little weird. That's why when kids first learn about it they usually react with a oooh yuck or other solar reaction.

I think you misunderstood. It is my opinion that you think homosexuality is icky.

[cHriS]

Mary wrote: " Chris... It is my understanding that any couple of any sexual grouping, that doesn't want register legally as a civil partnership or marriage, has no rights. Is that not correct? No one who refused legal certification has rights. So I do not understand your argument... Unless you object to word marriage, not the actual rights given.
"

Mary, this is from a Uk point only.

1.Same sex couples, having a civil partnership, have all the same rights as a married couple, without the marriage.

2. Couples of either sex living together, do not have the rights of the above.

That is how it is now.

But if same sex couples are allowed to marry....

1. Same sex couples can then either choose to get married OR have a civil partnership.

2. Opposite sex couples would NOT have that choice, they could marriage to have' rights'. BUT if they wanted to live together and not get married they could not have a civil partnership...so they would not have any rights.

If the law granted same sex 'marriage' AND allowed opposite sex couples to have a 'civil partnership', everything would seem ok.

........but, you would be then discriminating against all other 'non sex couples' who live together. For example two sisters who set up home together, a carer who looks after a parent for much of their life. they have no rights.


Mary wrote:Unless you object to word marriage, not the actual rights given.

That is it, all I object to is the 'word marriage'.