Proposition 8

Alright then, let's make a real discussion about it.

I'll admit, I'm a little biased against anti-gay people. I support gay rights fully, and I don't see a logical reason to ban gay marriage. There's supposed to be a separation of church and state, so there shouldn't be ANY laws enacted in regard to marriage.

But nonetheless, gay marriage is now banned in California.

What are your thoughts on this, and why?

so there shouldn't be ANY laws enacted in regard to marriage.

I want to marry my dog, legally
I want to marry my 4year old neighbor, legally

works?

so there shouldn't be ANY laws enacted in regard to marriage.

I want to marry my dog, legally
I want to marry my 4year old neighbor, legally

works?

Marriage should be up to the individual churches/temples/shrines that are performing the ceremony. One Christian church could say "no" to gay marriage while another one across the street could say "yes".

I doubt EITHER of those churches would say "yes" to dog and 4 year old marriage. But even if they did, there are other laws which don't pertain to religion, that would prevent people from "doing" anything to a dog or a 4 year old.

Well maybe I rushed the stage a little bit when I said there shouldn't, be ANY laws enacted. I think the only kind of laws regarding marriage should be the whole "you can't marry people under 18 unless their parents say you can" law.

at least your not taking the 'born with it/state of mind' stance, because then I'd have to pull out the pedo's

at least your not taking the 'born with it/state of mind' stance, because then I'd have to pull out the pedo's

I'm not quite sure I know what you're referring to, however...

I personally believe that gays are born that way and/or they maybe turned that way from environmental factors.

Personally, both of those explanations seem more plausible than "they chose to be that way", because if THAT were true, then they could also "choose" to stop being gay, and then we wouldn't have problems like "Prop 8".

I do believe you should have the right to marry anyone and whoever is sick enough to marry something else should be given the rights to marry that something else. Their lives

There are a lot of people out there that are just bothered by the fact that there are men somewhere sucking each others' dicks. They think that by keeping them from getting married will somehow make them stop guzzling seman.

It's unfortunate that so many people are bigoted over an issue that is none of their business to begin with.

I'll quote something a friend of mine said years ago:

"Let's get back to the Biblical Standards of Marriage - How much for your daughter?"

As a person who doesn't hold much merit in marriage, this really doesn't make a difference to me. Marriage is an outdated rite that only has one benefit: tax purposes. Why do people really need some organization to tell them that they're allowed to live together, or have sex, or raise a family? People do those things without marriage all the time. As for the people who are very vocal about this, why not let people be happy? This is just another case of people wanting to impose their hand on another's business. Does it make a difference to you if the gay couple down the street have a document that states their relationship status? For that matter, how would someone having multiple wives or husbands effect your life? It wouldn't, but people are boring, and take pleasure in seeing other people suffer. The simple solution would be for people to stop putting power into a ceremony that doesn't really mean anything, and worry about the things that are wrong with their own lives.

I'm against Prop 8 for obvious reasons. People should have the right to marry whoever they wish. And before Nouman starts up again on people marrying dogs or 4 year old neighbors, the major difference is that the two guys/ two girls can love each other and want to marry each other. Both parties would have to want it and say "I do", and I somehow doubt that dogs or 4 year olds even understand what a marriage is, let alone want to get married.

@Holk - Oh, no real benefit to marriage. I mean, aside from the right to many of the ex- or late spouse's benefits, including:

Social Security pension, veteran's pensions, indemnity compensation for service-connected deaths, medical care, and nursing home care, right to burial in veterans' cemeteries, educational assistance, and housing, survivor benefits for federal employees, survivor benefits for spouses of longshoremen, harbor workers, railroad workers, additional benefits to spouses of coal miners who die of black lung disease, $100,000 to spouse of any public safety officer killed in the line of duty, continuation of employer-sponsored health benefits, renewal and termination rights to spouse's copyrights on death of spouse, continued water rights of spouse in some circumstances, payment of wages and workers compensation benefits after worker death, making, revoking, and objecting to post-mortem anatomical gifts...

And the right to benefits while married, such as:

employment assistance and transitional services for spouses of members being separated from military service; continued commissary privileges per diem payment to spouse for federal civil service employees when relocating, sponsor husband/wife for immigration benefits...

As well as joint and family-related rights including:

joint filing of bankruptcy permitted, joint parenting rights, such as access to children's school records, family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or prison, next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims, custodial rights to children, shared property, child support, and alimony after divorce, domestic violence intervention, access to "family only" services, such as reduced rate memberships to clubs & organizations or residency in certain neighborhoods, Preferential hiring for spouses of veterans in government jobs, Tax-free transfer of property between spouses (including on death) and exemption from "due-on-sale" clauses, Special consideration to spouses of citizens and resident aliens, Threats against spouses of various federal employees is a federal crime, Right to continue living on land purchased from spouse by National Park Service when easement granted to spouse, Court notice of probate proceedings, Domestic violence protection orders, Existing homestead lease continuation of rights, Regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants exemption, Funeral and bereavement leave, Joint adoption and foster care, Joint tax filing, Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society, Legal status with stepchildren, Making spousal medical decisions, Spousal non-resident tuition deferential waiver, Permission to make funeral arrangements for a deceased spouse, including burial or cremation, Right of survivorship of custodial trust, Right to change surname upon marriage, Right to enter into prenuptial agreement, Right to inheritance of property, and Spousal privilege in court cases.

But hey, trivialities.

So you get materials and money. Great.

And a pretty ring that means you wuv eachother

Really, the best thing you get out of marriage besides the status and material is probably nothing, maybe to some people it makes them happy to know their partner has made vows and such to not sleep with anyone else and the sort.

Now about anti-gays, well I don't really care much for them. I believe its the person's own right, to want to marry someone else, mostly if they have the mental capacity to understand what love is and not just go "Hey look, my friends are getting married. I think I will to". If someone does indeed love another, and want to get married to that other person, then by all means let them, religion should not play a big part into who marries whom for various reasons, the best one I would think of now is that, Not everyone is of the same bloody religion. There god may say it's okay for you to love the same gender.

In my case I would be financially better off not being married because I would get more social security for my disability. They think that as soon as I'm married I'm suddenly getting twice as much income, therefore they should take almost all of my disability away. And since finding a job is incredibly difficult for me (people don't really care for hiring people who are visually impaired, even though they say they will) this leaves us with only one real source of income.

Anyway, again, people just like to force their beliefs on people that don't share those beliefs. Especially Christians.

By the way...

Where in the bible does Jesus say that gays are bad? All I've heard of are a few lines by this "Leviticus" guy, but "Leviticus" doesn't sound anything like "Jesus" except for the "us" at the end of their names, so clearly they aren't the same people.

One of the chief arguments against homosexuality that I hear is "because the Bible is against it and the Bible is the word of God", but according to the Trinity belief, Jesus is God, and yet it was Leviticus, not Jesus, who preaches against homosexuality. Where in the Bible does JESUS say being gay is bad? Who is this Leviticus guy and what gives him the right to put anti-gay graffiti in the bible? Is it true that the Bible is just a Jesus-ified version of the Torah?

Not that the Bible gets a say in the anti-gay issue or anything, but I just wanted to know if half of these anti-gay Christians really know what the hell (no pun intended) they're talking about? An anti-gay Catholic friend of mine told me he hasn't read the Bible yet for crying out loud! If you're going to hate a group of people, at least know WHY your comrades justify it!

They should really just put their noses on their own business, I don't see why they worry of banning gay marriage when they should worry on other things.

:/ If they're ambitious, they do it to get the majority of votes, they just like to mess with other people's live & worry about 'changing the meaning of marriage'.

@Animefan: It's the sexual act it speak, not living as a couple, that's what my father & my uncle tell that the bible say . . . the people misunderstood the message. :/

By the way...

Where in the bible does Jesus say that gays are bad? All I've heard of are a few lines by this "Leviticus" guy, but "Leviticus" doesn't sound anything like "Jesus" except for the "us" at the end of their names, so clearly they aren't the same people.

One of the chief arguments against homosexuality that I hear is "because the Bible is against it and the Bible is the word of God", but according to the Trinity belief, Jesus is God, and yet it was Leviticus, not Jesus, who preaches against homosexuality. Where in the Bible does JESUS say being gay is bad? Who is this Leviticus guy and what gives him the right to put anti-gay graffiti in the bible? Is it true that the Bible is just a Jesus-ified version of the Torah?

Not that the Bible gets a say in the anti-gay issue or anything, but I just wanted to know if half of these anti-gay Christians really know what the hell (no pun intended) they're talking about? An anti-gay Catholic friend of mine told me he hasn't read the Bible yet for crying out loud! If you're going to hate a group of people, at least know WHY your comrades justify it!

because God destroyed Sodom and Gommorah.  And in Sodom they had gay sex or some shit.
Also: keep in mind that different christians and different churches are allowed to interpret different sections of the bible completely differently.  some sections are literal and some are purely metaphorical.  though it's hard to keep track of which, considering it all seems to be situational interpretation.

Personally, I think it should be plain and simple: two of-age consenting adults should be allowed to marry.
Nouman: pull out pedos and beastiality on that one.

That all being said.
I'm glad that people are protesting Prop 8, and that it very well could be overturned.  Even the Governator himself, as well as a few other celebrities are supporting the protest.

Gay marriage is a little more complicated than what it is commonly presented as by either side. On the one hand, nobody should be discriminated against for taking actions that have no negative social consequences. On the other hand, it has a lot more to do with the word "marriage" then it does with the legal concept of marriage. What the argument comes down to on a religious basis is a concept of "marriage" that is sacred and defined by God. Because of this, any alteration to a definition of marriage is essentially profaning a sacred tradition for those of certain religious persuasions. Because government relies on hegemony, defining marriage as something ultimately states itself as correct and all other belief systems definition of marriage as incorrect. This takes on a form of social discrimination against other belief systems that do not agree with that definition of marriage. Like I say, it profanes the sacred and enforces itself as correct and the other belief systems as incorrect and bigoted. Now, this is not something new by any measure. If you are Catholic, the allowance of divorce is itself an offense against the sacred tradition of marriage as well, and probably a worse one than allowing gay marriage. To demonstrate that, all that is necessary is to look at a Catholic definition of marriage as opposed to a legal definition:

Catholic Marriage

Catholic marriage, also called matrimony, is an indissoluble bond between a man and a woman, created by human contract and ratified by divine grace. It is one of the seven sacraments. It is ordinarily celebrated in a Nuptial Mass.

The legal definition of marriage in Canada is more or less:

"the voluntary union for life of two persons to the exclusion of all others."

Unlike Catholic marriage, the bond is dissoluble (no restrictions on divorce), it's not a sacrament, it is not ratified by divine grace, and it is between any two individuals. At least in some sense, forcing a Catholic person to recognize that as "marriage" forces them to reduce their own conception of marriage to something much weaker - thus transgressing against freedom of religious belief.

For that reason, while I understand the rights of same-sex couples to have their union validated by the government, I also understand that the redefinition of marriage transgresses freedom of belief in that it takes what is profoundly sacred for those of some religious persuasions and changes it to something without any real meaning - at best some social benefits.

My own opinion is that governments should not offer "marriage" at all, but instead change what is now called "marriage" to be "civil union" or "domestic partnership" or whatever and allow any two consenting adults to participate in that. Thus, it would remove the primary barrier to same-sex partnerships (that is, the fact that redefining marriage transgresses freedom of religious belief), and it would simultaneously grant equal rights to all people of any sexual orientation. Of course, neither side would like that solution as people only like solutions that prioritize their own views and discriminate against others, but it's fair.

It's not really that complicated at all. Let's say for a moment that religious beliefs are a legitimate argument against gay marriage, even though it isn't. But let's just say it is. Then you have exactly one legitimate argument and it has nothing to do with making laws. Everyone else against gay marriage doesn't really have a legitimate reason. The law should not be based off people's religious beliefs. It'd be like making it illegal to eat meat on Fridays during lent, or illegal to ever take God's name in vain.

Also, the bible actually doesn't say in any place that homosexuality is forbidden. There are a few vague one or two line passages that get bandied around as Christian/Catholic law, but they're usually used out of context and stretched to fit the premise.

What the bible says is not important. What people believe it or any other sacred text says constitutes a religious belief - every person has a right to religious belief in the United States, ergo it is important in law making to respect that right to religious belief. If a law violates that right, then that is a legitimate ground on which to form a protest to that law. Therefore religious belief has something to do with making laws.

I am not saying that a law should be made on religious beliefs - I simply believe that a law ought to respect religious beliefs as much as is possible. Given the alternative that I set up (abolishing legal marriage and replacing the word with civil union or whatever), the only thing that redefining marriage does that the alternative does not do is profane the religious traditions of a large number of people while providing no additional benefits to same-sex couples. As such, any arguments for the redefining marriage over my alternative are predicated on anti-religious discrimination. I don't see how it can be seen as preferable, nor do I see any reason for the law to infringe on the rights of those people. Further, all my argument amounts to is a further separation of Church and State, which I am sure we all here agree is useful. Since the term "marriage" is so tied up with religious sentiment and belief, making a clear distinction between what religions consider to be marriage and the legal benefits the state provides to couples living together can only be positive.

Of course what the bible says is important. Not to me, but to Christians. If it isn't, then they are not really Christians. The Catholic religion was based on this book, so why would it not matter what it says? If they make up their own rules without even referencing the single thing that formed the religion, then they are their own religion's enemy. They are some sort of self-serving group of people who think they can just change the rules as they go alo--

Oh shit.


I hate people.

the law says 'can' not 'must'.

the government can say 'gay marriage is legal'
it doesn't mean that everyone is now forced to be gay.

if it's against your beliefs, then don't do it.

I don't know if you were trying to address my argument or not, but since I am egotistical I will assume you were.

In which case, that doesn't address a single point of my argument. The problem is that it does more than simply include someone in a tradition - it is modifying the content of the tradition. Most religious conceptions of marriage don't centre on the love between two people - instead it involves convoluted notions of oneness and God and other things completely extraneous to legal concerns. However, by defining anything, the government excludes other definitions and implicitly states that they are invalid. Thus, the redefinition of marriage is essentially a statement that the religious beliefs of many people concerning an important tradition are invalid in society.

That being said, if the only way to avoid discrimination against people of homosexual inclinations was to do so, then I would be for it. As it is not, the religious discrimination involved in that action is entirely unnecessary and to some degree malicious. It would be like allowing all headwear in school, except for headscarves. It's discriminatory towards people with particular religious persuasions for no other reason than to be discriminatory. It would be serve the exact same purpose to abolish the word marriage and replace it with a religiously ambivalent word to which all people can adhere without subordinating their religious beliefs to that of the state.

But then again:

neither side would like that solution as people only like solutions that prioritize their own views and discriminate against others, but it's fair.

Everyone should be entitled to their own lover, male of female. Like Namkcor said, nobody is forcing you to go out and sleep with a guy or a girl.

Prop 8 wasn't to ban a civil union between same sex couples, just wanted to strictly keep the word marriage to mean male and female. It'd be like changing the names of the planets because you think Jupiter should be Zeus, it's stupid and pointless because someone will always want Jupiter and someone will always want Zeus. Personally, prop 8 should have been declined, as it's a silly act that keeps one person happy and another person mad.

Another complaint is that it would be taught in schools, everyday there was some bullshit ad showing a lady unloading groceries from her truck, telling some story about how her son came home talking about gay marriage. I really doubt that as it came out before the election ended.

Well maybe I rushed the stage a little bit when I said there shouldn't, be ANY laws enacted. I think the only kind of laws regarding marriage should be the whole "you can't marry people under 18 unless their parents say you can" law.

Ok so the law of consent should be taken away then?

You're godawful stupid.

Yay for necroposting! Lol. Idc. I wanna participate, too, as a Christian. :3

First off, lol @Anski

Secondly, as far as I know, with my Christian i's, God doesn't say anywhere "No homosexuality." As NAMKCOR pointed out, God did kill Sodom and Gomorrah. Now, there's a word "sodomite" which obviously roots from either Sodom or from wherever both the city and word originated from. A sodomite is one who engages in sodomy (anal/oral sex with opposite sex or intercourse with same sex). God's already gone over the matters of adultery so there's obviously gotta be a little sumthin'-sumthin' gay goin' on in Sodom. So he killed them, meaning it's bad.

Somewhere later on in the New Testament, in one of the letters, one of the apostles talks about homosexual practices. He says practitioners of those practices (along with a BUNCH of other stuff) would send you to hell or something like that.

I'm just getting my views as a Christian out there. I'm not a gay basher, for realz. I'm Christian and I'd like to have everyone share my beliefs but, hey, it's improbable. If a gay guy's Christian, the best he could do is just avoid the practices. Being gay's fine, but it's when you indulge in those practices that its wrong in God's eyes.

And as a closing statement from a Christian standpoint, I don't care about gays who do what they want. That's not my problem to deal with. However, I'm a boy (not a man ;-; ) of faith and if you get sent to hell and w/e, sure, you didn't listen. That's also not my problem.

Show me the actual passages.

Somewhere later on in the New Testament, in one of the letters, one of the apostles talks about homosexual practices. He says practitioners of those practices (along with a BUNCH of other stuff) would send you to hell or something like that.

so if being gay means you go to hell, then why is there a (married) pair of homosexual saints?
http://www.colfaxrecord.com/detail/91429.html

I'm tired of third party interpretations. That picture doesn't prove anything. I want to see the original pieces of scripture that either damn or accept homosexual unions.

I'm tired of third party interpretations. That picture doesn't prove anything. I want to see the original pieces of scripture that either damn or accept homosexual unions.

I think you neglected to read the part about all the records in the Vatican of same-sex unions held and sanctified.

Scripture, my friend. I want to see scripture.

does the scripture matter compared to that?
if the scriptures say "no gay marriage", then they obviously didn't care.

scripture, like everything else written, is subject to interpretation.  scripture will get you nowhere.

I'm not saying that you're wrong. I just want to see it written in the texts that the religion was based on.

@Holk: the basic claim of Catholicism (less so for many protestant denominations) is that since Jesus said to Peter: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." (Matt 16:9) - that is considered the founding of the Church and that it gives the Church the authority to rule on matters of faith and morals. So while sacred scripture is a source of revelation, the Church has the power to make rules too, and sacred tradition is just as valid a source of revelation. In which case there need not be any reference to it in scripture. Is it a valid interpretation? Most protestant denominations would disagree and are more bible-oriented and do not believe the Church has the power to make rules - everything must be based on the bible. Of course, most protestant religions also believe that faith alone can get you to heaven and your actions do not influence your judgement, and yet sins still exist for some odd reason. A lot of Christians are kind of dumb, it seems, though perhaps I am just misunderstanding the situation and I am the dumb one. But, I suppose if you were to take any random sample of 2 billion people, you'd likely get quite a lot of dumb people in your sample. In any case, I don't know that much about most protestant sects; when I was in Theology, we focused most on Catholicism.

I don't know anything about what NAM is talking about - I've not looked into those two saints, but when you're dealing with third century people there is very little evidence either way - maybe they were and maybe they weren't. Further, it wouldn't matter if they were gay, seeing that no saints are sinless or expected to be sinless, and all people who go to heaven are saints whether canonized or not. SO, gay people in heaven would not suggest that homosexuality is a sin or not a sin either way. The only person that such a claim would matter for is someone who believes that homosexual activity is an unpardonable sin, and I think Christian denominations that do not believe in redemption are fairly rare. OF course, it seems to me that a lot of Christians use their religion as an excuse to be intolerant without understanding or knowing what their religion teaches (and really, once a week for a few years hardly gives a person any significant knowledge of his or her respective theologies).

Show me the actual passages.

Sorry, had school.

Okay, here's proof Sodom had gays in it.

Genesis 19:5 says, "They called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.'"

Oh, and a couple verses back, it says all the men, both young and old, came out. No women. And, as stated before, Sodom was killed, etc.

--------------------------------------------

This is the only one I could find after skimming through but the first one is "sexual immorality." I don't know about you, but homosexuality seems pretty immoral to me. If a law gets passed that homosexual marriage is allowed, I just want to point out that it does not automatically make it "moral."

Galatians 5:19-21 says, "The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery;/idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions/ and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God."

--------------------------------------------

Anyhoo, that's the best I could do for now.

@MA: About the protestant religions and the sin "[existing] for some odd reason," it's that at the final judgement, people will be saved and judged and etc. I don't really know exactly. It hasn't happened yet. Anyways, from what I know, all sins then will be accounted for and punishments will be given out accordingly. Yes, you may go to heaven but you can still be punished somehow. Don't ask how because I'm not God. >_>

Also, the Bible states that homosexual practices are what's wrong. My pastor told me that if you're homosexual (and he goes by the fact that homosexuality is NOT A CHOICE) and you're a good Christian, the best thing to do would be to contain those urges and live a life of celibacy. It's just as hard as a heterosexual and would be merited just as well.

EDIT: Just a reminder. This is the Bible I'm talking about. All arguments are towards the fact/opinion/faith that the Bible is true. Even if you don't believe in the religious part of the Bible, it can be used as a historical textbook. You kinda need to trust it to do that but, hey, don't you do that for any historical textbook that exists?

"sexual immorality" is very general and vague. :/
I don't really like it when vague statements are used to condemn something specific.
it's all interpretation.  one person may see it totally differently.

Also, separation of church and state.  Laws should not be made based on religious doctrine.
Laws should be there to protect people from theft, murder, and things like that.  Not to govern moral standards, or to enforce the views of a particular religion or religions.

No, one of the epistles talks about adultery and homosexuality. I forget which one, I'll look for it later.

In the meantime, you got Leviticus 20:13. "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Idk about you, but that seems pretty straight-forward to me.

What if lie means to tell a non-truth?

It doesn't say it's a sin either, it just says they'll be killed, which in and of itself is a sin.

No, one of the epistles talks about adultery and homosexuality. I forget which one, I'll look for it later.

In the meantime, you got Leviticus 20:13. "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Idk about you, but that seems pretty straight-forward to me.

but you can't lie with a man as you would a woman.
also: that really only says 'bisexuality is wrong' seeing as a gay would never lie with a woman in the first place.

my main issue is that when the bible comes up in this type of debate, people love to say that 'god' declared it, or that it's  the word of god or something like that.  It's neither.  It's the opinions and viewpoints of a handful of people in that day and age, written down as a record.  You can't say 'god hates gays', but you can easily say 'Leviticus hates gays'

edit: lastly, that's jewish law
and the same section also says eating shellfish and wearing mixed fabrics are sin, and that it's fine to beat the fuck out of your wife and sell your daughter into sexual slavery.

What if lie means to tell a non-truth?

Lol

It doesn't say it's a sin either, it just says they'll be killed, which in and of itself is a sin.

Yeah, but God killed people all the time so he'll do what he wants, lol.

[quote author=NAMKCOR link=topic=30954.msg390322#msg390322 date=1231472965
but you can't lie with a man as you would a woman.
also: that really only says 'bisexuality is wrong' seeing as a gay would never lie with a woman in the first place.
[/quote]
But the problem would be that the guy's lying with the man. That's what's being pointed out. If it was just about being with someone else, it would have said "no adultery."

my main issue is that when the bible comes up in this type of debate, people love to say that 'god' declared it, or that it's  the word of god or something like that.  It's neither.  It's the opinions and viewpoints of a handful of people in that day and age, written down as a record.  You can't say 'god hates gays', but you can easily say 'Leviticus hates gays'

Yeah, but Leviticus is a book of the Bible, God's word. >_>

edit: lastly, that's jewish law
and the same section also says eating shellfish and wearing mixed fabrics are sin, and that it's fine to beat the fuck out of your wife and sell your daughter into sexual slavery.

Lol Idk what to say to that. I ain't a scholar on OT stuff.

Yeah, but Leviticus is a book of the Bible, God's word. >_>

did god write the bible?
no.
the apostles did.
were the apostles prophets?
no.
they were average people who watched Jesus do his thing.
word of the apostles =/= word of god.

Lol Idk what to say to that. I ain't a scholar on OT stuff.

if one part of Leviticus applies, it all applies.

The apostles didn't write the bible. Two of them wrote two of the gospels, and a few other books, but a lot of the New Testament was by Paul (not an apostle), and then two of the gospels are by Luke and Mark, both of whom were not apostles.

ANd the Old Testment was written by prophets - none of it was written by apostles.

In any case, any book of the bible is considered to be divinely inspired. However, much of the Old Testament is considered "changed" by the coming of Jesus. Christians believe that Jesus' entry into the world changed the relationship that God had with the world (end of the Old Covenant God made with Abraham and beginning of a New Covenant, hence the words Old and New Testament). In fact, Jesus often changed the laws set down in the Old Testament specifically; with regard to divorce he expressly forbids it and says that Moses allowed it only because of the "hardness in men's hearts"; with regard to the commandments he quotes only two: love of God and love of neighbour. This doesn't make the Old Testament irrelevant, by any means, and since God is not supposed to be temporal, the God represented in the Old Testament is still considered to be the same God that is now, but the added revelation is supposed to have taken the emphasis away from action and on to intention. A good action with bad intention may be sinful while a bad action with good intention may be virtuous. Technically, this does mean they can pick and choose what parts of Leviticus to follow or not follow, as long as they can justify why they believe that part of Leviticus no longer applies under the New Covenant or applies only in limited circumstance.


End of long, unnecessary, and off-topic post.

[stuff]
End of long, unnecessary, and off-topic post.

thanks for the correction on that first part , my mistake.
My point, however, remains the same, the Bible is still the word of man, not the word of God.

What bothers me the most about Proposition 8 is not that it's disallowing homosexual marriage, or anything of the like.  It's that it was created because of religious beliefs.

Laws should NOT be based on Religion, or founded in Religion.  Laws exist to protect life, safety, and property.  Laws should be concrete, not subjective.  Religion and religious text is subjective, and interpreted differently by different groups of people.

Laws should be a layer above religion, not that they're more important, but allow me to explain what I mean.

it's like an if statement.  and I think I'll use pseudocode to explain it.

Code: [Select]

if law == true then
   if religion == true then
       //true
   else
       //false
   end
else
   //false
end


Religion is more specific, and is more about protecting moral innocence and keeping up a particular belief, rather than anything else.  There is (supposed) separation of church and state for a reason.

"Render under caesar that which is caesar's render unto god that which is god's"

But - yeah, MA. XD Such as the "you can't eat some foods" changed by Jesus. And the letters the apostles wrote? They were Jesus' disciples and they were closest to him and heard him teach every time. They knew what was up and gave knowledge that they had gotten through Jesus to other people.

It's like saying to a preacher "Oh wait, you're not God so why should we listen to you?" They know what's up and know the word of God so... yeah. XD

And NAMKCOR, religion is heavily based into many things. Pledge of Allegiance, people get days off from school because Jews have their holidays, money says "In God we trust," etc. Plus, is there evidence that Proposition 8 was made because of religious beliefs? As Edgeworth says, evidence is everything!

Lol, but now that the topic of religion is mostly off, it is time for me to bid adieu~

I bet all those priests who molested children knew what's up.

But - yeah, MA. XD Such as the "you can't eat some foods" changed by Jesus. And the letters the apostles wrote? They were Jesus' disciples and they were closest to him and heard him teach every time. They knew what was up and gave knowledge that they had gotten through Jesus to other people.

It's like saying to a preacher "Oh wait, you're not God so why should we listen to you?" They know what's up and know the word of God so... yeah. XD

Actually, it's nothing like that.  It's like saying to a preacher "Oh wait, you're not god, so that means your words aren't God's words."

And NAMKCOR, religion is heavily based into many things. Pledge of Allegiance, people get days off from school because Jews have their holidays, money says "In God we trust," etc. Plus, is there evidence that Proposition 8 was made because of religious beliefs? As Edgeworth says, evidence is everything!

http://mormonsfor8.com/?p=154
The Mormons make up the vast majority of the donators to the Prop 8 rallying.

http://www.adventistsfor8.com/Info.aspx
This article just pissed me off.  It's mostly outrage that something would ever change.  But at the bottom, lo and behold, 4 religious reasons all based on the same church.

Note: I'm not saying the only reason it was instated was religion, but none of the reasons given by anyone are anything besides HOW DARE THEY CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE TO ALLOW THOSE DIRTY STINKING GAYS TO HAVE FREEDOM, or GAYS ARE GOING TO HELL DAMN THEM ALL NO MARRIAGE.

Here's a summary of what I see as the arguments against it:

How dare people be different.  How dare they not believe that homosexuality will damn you forever.  How dare they give these sinners a basic right.    If they pass this my child is going to become inexplicably gay!  This will destroy society as we know it.  How dare the law support any moral views but my own!

I'm ashamed that I was brought up in the religion that pretty much singlehandedly swayed this opressive law into being passed.

The proponents argued for exclusively heterosexual marriage and claimed that failure to reverse a Supreme Court ruling from May 2008 that recognized a right of same-sex couples to marry would damage society, require changes to what was taught in schools about marriage, and threaten the free exercise of religion. The opponents argued that eliminating the rights of any Californian and mandating that one group of people be treated differently from everyone else was unfair and wrong.

Sorry, what would threaten your free exercise of religion? If you're not gay and not trying to marry, then whether this was passed or not, it has absolutely nothing to do with you. If the mormons got their way, we'd be undoing decades of work on equality for women and blacks.

If people are homophobic, the thought of gay marriage scares them, the solution is fairly simple. Simply don't practice it. There is no need to opress others with your skewed views.

So moo, why does it matter so much to you what other people do with their private lives? Why won't you just leave them alone? Why do you want to force them to have to live according to your beliefs?

Sorry, what would threaten your free exercise of religion? If you're not gay and not trying to marry, then whether this was passed or not, it has absolutely nothing to do with you. If the mormons got their way, we'd be undoing decades of work on equality for women and blacks.

hehe, according to the mormon church, Blacks were souls who were punished for not fighting one either side in the war between Satan and God.

Actually, it's nothing like that.  It's like saying to a preacher "Oh wait, you're not god, so that means your words aren't God's words."

But it's because of faith we take it that it's God's words through that preacher. You can't really argue about faith considering it's just a part of someone. >_>

http://mormonsfor8.com/?p=154
The Mormons make up the vast majority of the donators to the Prop 8 rallying.

I wanted evidence because I didn't really know, lol. I've been only fighting the religious aspect of this thing. >_>

Anyways, doesn't that mean the Mormons just support Prop 8 the most? They're just rich as hell and they'll do what they like. It's not like they're the ones that brought up the idea of Proposition 8... were they Lol.

http://www.adventistsfor8.com/Info.aspx
This article just pissed me off.  It's mostly outrage that something would ever change.  But at the bottom, lo and behold, 4 religious reasons all based on the same church.

Note: I'm not saying the only reason it was instated was religion, but none of the reasons given by anyone are anything besides HOW DARE THEY CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE TO ALLOW THOSE DIRTY STINKING GAYS TO HAVE FREEDOM, or GAYS ARE GOING TO HELL DAMN THEM ALL NO MARRIAGE.

Eh, if they really read the Bible, they should be more focused on converting these people. Like Halo said, not having a ring on their finger won't stop them from "guzzling seman."

What bothers me the most about Proposition 8 is not that it's disallowing homosexual marriage, or anything of the like.  It's that it was created because of religious beliefs.

Yeah, how dare people let their beliefs influence their actions? Belief and political action ought to be completely separate! Just because someone believes that killing animals is a horrible evil equivalent to murder doesn't mean they should bother me or try to have it passed into law. It's just their beliefs that are influencing their actions, and really, unless I believe it too, it has no place in law making or politics.

Be honest though, if Prop 8 was about disallowing something mundane, like using endangered species as exhibits in a zoo, and it was based and put forward by a Jewish or other religious group, then you wouldn't care half as much. It's totally because it's disallowing homosexual marriage, and maybe the fact that it was put forward by a religious group is supplementary to that..

Yeah, how dare people let their beliefs influence their actions? Belief and political action ought to be completely separate!

Separation of Church and State.

Just because someone believes that killing animals is a horrible evil equivalent to murder doesn't mean they should bother me or try to have it passed into law. It's just their beliefs that are influencing their actions, and really, unless I believe it too, it has no place in law making or politics.

I'm not going to pick apart that one example, and I'm just going to comment on the point you're making.

Law is supposed to be neutral, not colored by any particular moral standard.  I'll say it again.  Separation of Church and State.  Everyone in America has their own particular moral standard, but laws are meant to be universal.  It simply doesn't work, if the laws start being tuned by one particular group above the others.  Something as universal as laws should be completely neutral. 

Laws are meant to protect life, rights, and property.  Not to enforce a particular moral standard.

It makes perfect sense for a religion to say 'no gay marriage', but it makes no sense for a law to say the same.  Because gays marrying doesn't kill anyone, or destroy any cultural foundations or cause theft and denial of rights or anything remotely harmful to society. 

Be honest though, if Prop 8 was about disallowing something mundane, like using endangered species as exhibits in a zoo, and it was based and put forward by a Jewish or other religious group, then you wouldn't care half as much. It's totally because it's disallowing homosexual marriage, and maybe the fact that it was put forward by a religious group is supplementary to that..

Regardless of the reason, I would still be ticked that a law was passed due to religion.  As stated earlier, laws are universal and therefore shouldn't be colored by any religion or moral set.

But it's because of faith we take it that it's God's words through that preacher. You can't really argue about faith considering it's just a part of someone. >_>

when a preacher quotes something that God actually said (for the sake of argument I'll allow that some direct quotes exist)* then yes, he is speaking God's word.  But when he reads sections of the bible that were written entirely by man (direct quotes from God constitute sections written at lest in part by God)*, or gives his homily, he is -not- speaking God's word.


*I'm not aware of any particular direct quotes from said God, and am not stating that they exist or do not, simply allowing for the possibility for the sake of discussion.

why does it matter so much to you what other people do with their private lives? Why won't you just leave them alone? Why do you want to force them to have to live according to your beliefs?

I think that this is the question that really needs to be answered.

Separation of Church and State.

But the people of the church can be/are citizens of the US. They have their say in the matter. If you wanna go about "separation of church and state," it's the individuals that are having their opinion. If you think that's wrong, maybe we should just have a government where everyone's got to be either agnostic or an atheist. Then we should completely disregard the actions of all past (and current) presidents.

Laws are meant to protect life, rights, and property.  Not to enforce a particular moral standard.

This is a less serious rebuttal but, property is also often changed with "pursuit of happiness," right? What if having gay people marry affects that pursuit and it disturbs you? Plus, you might think you have a right to live in a country where you're not influenced by the existence of gay marriage. It's obvious that most of the country is straight and a good chunk of people should be concerned about this issue. Does this not go against the common good, then?

Regardless of the reason, I would still be ticked that a law was passed due to religion.  As stated earlier, laws are universal and therefore shouldn't be colored by any religion or moral set.

We have freedom of religion. It's a law passed due to religion. Although it accepts and encourages tolerance, it's still a law passed due to religion. If it wasn't passed, then people would be, like, "HEY! WE WANT FREEDOM OF RELIGION!" Then what would the argument be? "Oh, sorry, we shouldn't mix religion with the government. Even though a majority of you want this law passed, it's too bad." If you say, "It's a democracy and if the majority want it passed, let's let it be a law!" then you should also agree with Proposition 8.

when a preacher quotes something that God actually said (for the sake of argument I'll allow that some direct quotes exist)* then yes, he is speaking God's word.  But when he reads sections of the bible that were written entirely by man (direct quotes from God constitute sections written at lest in part by God)*, or gives his homily, he is -not- speaking God's word.

But it's because of faith we take it that it's God's words through that preacher.

I also meant that any word the preacher says, it's by faith that we take those words as God's words through the preacher.

why does it matter so much to you what other people do with their private lives? Why won't you just leave them alone? Why do you want to force them to have to live according to your beliefs?

I think that this is the question that really needs to be answered.

Then we might as well legalize using hard narcotics (for the sake of it being your private life, only in your own house, of course), allow child/spouse abuse, allow child molesting,  etc.

But the people of the church can be/are citizens of the US. They have their say in the matter. If you wanna go about "separation of church and state," it's the individuals that are having their opinion. If you think that's wrong, maybe we should just have a government where everyone's got to be either agnostic or an atheist. Then we should completely disregard the actions of all past (and current) presidents.

No, it means that to pass a law you should have some reason other than "god says no" or "well I don't like it".

This is a less serious rebuttal but, property is also often changed with "pursuit of happiness," right? What if having gay people marry affects that pursuit and it disturbs you?

that's a matter of opinion and moral standard, which the law does not exist to enforce.

Plus, you might think you have a right to live in a country where you're not influenced by the existence of gay marriage. It's obvious that most of the country is straight and a good chunk of people should be concerned about this issue. Does this not go against the common good, then?

how does it go against the common good?  Does it kill people?  Do gays walk the streets and rape everyone in sight?

We have freedom of religion. It's a law passed due to religion. Although it accepts and encourages tolerance, it's still a law passed due to religion. If it wasn't passed, then people would be, like, "HEY! WE WANT FREEDOM OF RELIGION!" Then what would the argument be? "Oh, sorry, we shouldn't mix religion with the government. Even though a majority of you want this law passed, it's too bad." If you say, "It's a democracy and if the majority want it passed, let's let it be a law!" then you should also agree with Proposition 8.

freedom of religion means you can worship whatever god in whatever way, or choose not to at all.  It has nothing to do with using religion as a reason to pass laws.  You're totally missing the point.

But it's because of faith we take it that it's God's words through that preacher.

Wow, god must be a total asshole then, given some of the stuff he's been saying through those preachers down south.

Then we might as well legalize using hard narcotics (for the sake of it being your private life, only in your own house, of course), allow child/spouse abuse, allow child molesting,  etc.

Hard narcotics can harm someone and end lives, child/spouse abuse is also injury and possible loss of life, meaning it'd be perfectly logical to pass a law against them, for the sake of protecting life.

You're completely disregarding 3/4 of what I say in an effort to find a hole in my argument.  It's not working.

This thread is getting stupid. You can't argue with a religious person because belief is based on faith. Faith means accepting something without proof, so no amount of facts will make them see the light. Anyway, one of you is arguing the legality of the issue while the other is arguing the morality.

shouldn't we be talking about legality of the issue anyway?  I mean, considering it's a law and all?

Yeah, how dare people let their beliefs influence their actions? Belief and political action ought to be completely separate!

Separation of Church and State.

Belief, not religious belief. For instance: "Laws exist to protect life, safety, and property.  Laws should be concrete, not subjective." - this is a belief, not a fact - perhaps it is something a majority of Americans believe, but that does not make it a fact. It is, quite simply, a belief that you would like to see put into practice more effectively. Is it invalid for your belief in this to influence how you vote or how you would like to see laws operate? 

It seems to me that Law is just as subjective as everything else and I am not at all certain that I believe in any objective morality - certainly none without an accompanying god. Laws exist in a society to reject those elements of human behaviour that are not desired in that society, and that is all. You believe that the only behavioural restrictions ought to be those that protect other human beings, and that is perfectly valid. However, others believe that the law should operate to restrict behaviours they consider immoral even when those behaviours do not harm other members of the society. Certainly you can contest their beliefs and certainly their beliefs and yours are in opposition, but it is hardly fair to say that those beliefs ought not influence how they want their society to operate, just as it is unfair to say that your political action should not be influenced by your personal beliefs on how laws should operate. Does it even make sense to expect that from someone? And yes, what you believe may be a founding principle of your society, but why should those principles be immutable?

This thread is getting stupid. You can't argue with a religious person because belief is based on faith. Faith means accepting something without proof, so no amount of facts will make them see the light. Anyway, one of you is arguing the legality of the issue while the other is arguing the morality.

You guys have a different kind of faith, too. You believe, without reason, that people should be left alone. You were obviously brought up with that kind of attitude or influenced by others to develop this attitude which was done by faith in what other said or did.

Letting people be isn't faith. It's not being annoying.

It's your belief that we should let them be.

:stuff:

I have to concede on this point as you are right as far as equality goes. 
However my stance on laws isn't founded in religious text.  Whether that makes a difference or not to you doesn't make a difference to me.  I'd just personally like to see a little more reasoning and logic used by the majority of America, when it comes to laws.

It's your belief that we should let them be.

what's your point?  So it's their belief that their morals should be enforced on everyone around them.  That doesn't make it any less annoying, or any more acceptable.  It's -my- belief that they can do whatever the hell they want, as long as they leave me and mine alone.

Some people would go far enough to call that kind of lifestyle and attitude a religion.

Some people would go far enough to call that kind of lifestyle and attitude a religion.

so what is the deity of "keep your nose out of everyone Else's business"?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

I believe none of those say anything that talks about a deity/deities of any kind.

Well: "esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies"

but yeah, a religion does not require a deity.

@NAM -

Well, I would say the implication that religious belief is necessarily illogical or unreasonable is false. While there are certainly people in a religion who are unreasonable or illogical, I doubt if those people were atheist that they would be any more reasonable or logical. Some people in religions are very smart - the last pope knew like 16 languages fluently, which certainly suggests an IQ that could not be easily subverted. Religions just adopt a certain philosophical outlook, and the moral codes that follow from that are generally more or less logical. You could easily argue that the premise:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

is equivalent to a religious belief in that it is based on no logic or justification, but is merely accepted - held as self-evident. Personally, I do not see this as self-evident, though I do see it as a useful basis for a society to function on.

In any case, you're right - I make no distinction between religious belief and any other type of belief, and so none of this will make a difference to you.

In any case, unless anyone has anything more to add, I'd be willing to lock this.
And moo, you've lost.

Lol. Maybe next time.