Evidence for God from Science

Folks,

If you are in California, like me, please vote yes on Prop 8.

http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/y ... rop_8.html

Thank you,

G -

Gman wrote:Folks,

If you are in California, like me, please vote yes on Prop 8.

http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/y ... rop_8.html

Thank you,

G -

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't California same sex marriages exactly like same-sex domestic partnerships??? Given this, going after marriage seems a little pointless... unless the benefits aren't all gay activists are after. Besides, unless homosexuals can have their marriages recognised at a federal level, then all of this is like grasping at straws. Gay activists need to tackle the heart of the matter: overturning the defense of marriage act and get their unions recognised by the federal government; they give a good 80% of the marriage rights, as opposed to state governments giving just 20%. California same sex marriages are just state marriages, not recognised by the federal government, so what progress have gays made if Prop 8 fails? None whatsoever. Unless same sex unions are recognised by the federal government, ALL same sex unions, whatever the name, wheverever the state, will be fundamentally useless and will offer no major benefits, unlike heterosexual marriages.

Over here in Britain, we have civil partnerships, which offer exactly what marriage offers, except that it's a private contract instead of a public institution, and adultery and non-consummation cannot be used as grounds for dissolution. This seems fine to me - can this not be used in America, supported by the federal government?

Oh, and so this post stays on topic: Nice article Rich, if not a little on the short side! One thing I don't get though, how does promoting gay rights abridge the rights of others? That's like saying promoting racial diversity abridges the rights of racists. People who are prejudiced and discriminate deserve to have rights that promote this kind of behavouir removed.

It probably doesn't matter anyway. This prop will probably get defeated... The old fashioned way of marriage is out of tune with mainstream America these days. A distant memory...

Harry12345 wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't California same sex marriages exactly like same-sex domestic partnerships??? Given this, going after marriage seems a little pointless... unless the benefits aren't all gay activists are after. Besides, unless homosexuals can have their marriages recognised at a federal level, then all of this is like grasping at straws. Gay activists need to tackle the heart of the matter: overturning the defense of marriage act and get their unions recognised by the federal government; they give a good 80% of the marriage rights, as opposed to state governments giving just 20%. California same sex marriages are just state marriages, not recognised by the federal government, so what progress have gays made if Prop 8 fails? None whatsoever. Unless same sex unions are recognised by the federal government, ALL same sex unions, whatever the name, wheverever the state, will be fundamentally useless and will offer no major benefits, unlike heterosexual marriages.

Over here in Britain, we have civil partnerships, which offer exactly what marriage offers, except that it's a private contract instead of a public institution, and adultery and non-consummation cannot be used as grounds for dissolution. This seems fine to me - can this not be used in America, supported by the federal government?

Oh, and so this post stays on topic: Nice article Rich, if not a little on the short side! One thing I don't get though, how does promoting gay rights abridge the rights of others? That's like saying promoting racial diversity abridges the rights of racists. People who are prejudiced and discriminate deserve to have rights that promote this kind of behavouir removed.

I originally thought that the domestic partnerships here offered the same rights as marriage, but they don't. And sure, the more states accept gay marriages, the more likely the federal govenment will recognize them. It's a moral issue related to what God prefers, so I voted yes on 8 (I did a mail-in ballot).

Harry12345 wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't California same sex marriages exactly like same-sex domestic partnerships??? Given this, going after marriage seems a little pointless... unless the benefits aren't all gay activists are after. Besides, unless homosexuals can have their marriages recognised at a federal level, then all of this is like grasping at straws. Gay activists need to tackle the heart of the matter: overturning the defense of marriage act and get their unions recognised by the federal government; they give a good 80% of the marriage rights, as opposed to state governments giving just 20%. California same sex marriages are just state marriages, not recognised by the federal government, so what progress have gays made if Prop 8 fails? None whatsoever. Unless same sex unions are recognised by the federal government, ALL same sex unions, whatever the name, wheverever the state, will be fundamentally useless and will offer no major benefits, unlike heterosexual marriages.

Over here in Britain, we have civil partnerships, which offer exactly what marriage offers, except that it's a private contract instead of a public institution, and adultery and non-consummation cannot be used as grounds for dissolution. This seems fine to me - can this not be used in America, supported by the federal government?

Oh, and so this post stays on topic: Nice article Rich, if not a little on the short side! One thing I don't get though, how does promoting gay rights abridge the rights of others? That's like saying promoting racial diversity abridges the rights of racists. People who are prejudiced and discriminate deserve to have rights that promote this kind of behavouir removed.

Harry,

The problem is with militant homosexual activist in the US that desire using marriage as the means to go after churches and ministers who refuse to marry them. In other words 'sue the crap' out those that oppose them.

For example Ms and Ms want to get married at their local Baptist Church. Baptist minister tells them, he cannot do this in good conscious. Ms and Ms say — hey let's get the ACLU and we'll sue you for violating our rights and for discrimination…

They succeed and the Church bites the dust…

That is how it is in America. In the UK, it is different and I can respect that difference in terms of legalese the UK uses. However, the militant homosexual activists in the US are not so civil or understanding. They have an agenda and it is not about human rights, not about love, it is about financial gain and overthrowing religious institutions…tossed in as well.

Harry, several months ago two militant homosexual activist went into a Roman Catholic Church all dressed up to draw attention to themselves and stood in the communion line for communion. In the news clip, the priest seemed tired after giving a few hundred parishioners communion and he did not appear to look up until after he gave communion to them. Was that a wise thing to do? That's not my point.

Point is — in the USA militant homosexual activist interrupt church services and are blatant in their hate. They also cause a lot people disgust by their antics. Is that how it is in the UK?

So we in the Churches in the USA are pushed into a corner in order to define marriage as between a man and a woman, legally, so that we will not be unjustly and arbitrarily sued.
-
-
-

Have any of you ever read this:
1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural.
2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the orphanages aren't full yet!
3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.
4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
5. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn't changed at all: women are property, Blacks can't marry Whites, and divorce is illegal.
6. Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities.
7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That's why we only have one religion in America.
8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall.
9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage license.
10. Children can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer lifespans.
12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians.

See, I don't know but in my opinion, everybody opposed to same-sex marriage seems to have some sort of strrange reasoning way they think what they think is right.
And a lot of the time, it isn't. There are A LOT of people in my school who are like 'Oh yeah gay boys are okay but lesbians aren't because they'd try to come on to me and i'd just f*cking slap them' And I feel like saying, 'No. Don't worry. They will not be attracted to you.'
But people have these stupid thought in their minds and the thought just stays there and gathers momentum and then the person is so stubborn that they can't just look and see how wrong they are about everything.

As it was said before we have civil partnerships here, and i think it works well, or at least gay people seem content with it

And i doubt very much that denying people their rights is 'what God prefers', Mrs cslewislover.
It's not a choice, it really isn't. And God would probably like us to spread the love, and not to discriminate. And if that love is between two people of the same sex, that's absolutely fine by me

I turned fifteen two weeks ago, and i think i could be gay.
Better still, I think that could be okay.

Hmm, except for one tiny problem....none of your little reasonings for defending gay marriage has any scripture in it.

It's interesting to see all these adds here on Prop. 8 here in California. Politicians such as Dianne Feinstein have labeled anyone who supports Prop. 8 as a bigot and an act of discrimination... Well what about the rights of a full grown man wanting to marry a boy?? Isn't that discrimination to say that he can't?? Contrary to public opinion, Marriage has always been restricted.... As quoted by Rich...

"Numerous laws exist that restrict the ability of certain people to enter into a marriage contract. First, marriage is only allowed between adults, not minors. Second, marriage is only allowed between two individuals. Multiple partner marriages (polygamy and polyandry) are not legal. Third, marriage is not allowed between closely related individuals (brothers, sisters, and first cousins). If marriage is declared a fundamental right of all individuals, then all restrictions to marriage would be declared unconstitutional, opening the doors to polygamy, polyandry, incest, and child marriage."

B. W. wrote:

Harry12345 wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't California same sex marriages exactly like same-sex domestic partnerships??? Given this, going after marriage seems a little pointless... unless the benefits aren't all gay activists are after. Besides, unless homosexuals can have their marriages recognised at a federal level, then all of this is like grasping at straws. Gay activists need to tackle the heart of the matter: overturning the defense of marriage act and get their unions recognised by the federal government; they give a good 80% of the marriage rights, as opposed to state governments giving just 20%. California same sex marriages are just state marriages, not recognised by the federal government, so what progress have gays made if Prop 8 fails? None whatsoever. Unless same sex unions are recognised by the federal government, ALL same sex unions, whatever the name, wheverever the state, will be fundamentally useless and will offer no major benefits, unlike heterosexual marriages.

Over here in Britain, we have civil partnerships, which offer exactly what marriage offers, except that it's a private contract instead of a public institution, and adultery and non-consummation cannot be used as grounds for dissolution. This seems fine to me - can this not be used in America, supported by the federal government?

Oh, and so this post stays on topic: Nice article Rich, if not a little on the short side! One thing I don't get though, how does promoting gay rights abridge the rights of others? That's like saying promoting racial diversity abridges the rights of racists. People who are prejudiced and discriminate deserve to have rights that promote this kind of behavouir removed.

Harry,

The problem is with militant homosexual activist in the US that desire using marriage as the means to go after churches and ministers who refuse to marry them. In other words 'sue the crap' out those that oppose them.

For example Ms and Ms want to get married at their local Baptist Church. Baptist minister tells them, he cannot do this in good conscious. Ms and Ms say — hey let's get the ACLU and we'll sue you for violating our rights and for discrimination…

They succeed and the Church bites the dust…

That is how it is in America. In the UK, it is different and I can respect that difference in terms of legalese the UK uses. However, the militant homosexual activists in the US are not so civil or understanding. They have an agenda and it is not about human rights, not about love, it is about financial gain and overthrowing religious institutions…tossed in as well.

Harry, several months ago two militant homosexual activist went into a Roman Catholic Church all dressed up to draw attention to themselves and stood in the communion line for communion. In the news clip, the priest seemed tired after giving a few hundred parishioners communion and he did not appear to look up until after he gave communion to them. Was that a wise thing to do? That's not my point.

Point is — in the USA militant homosexual activist interrupt church services and are blatant in their hate. They also cause a lot people disgust by their antics. Is that how it is in the UK?

So we in the Churches in the USA are pushed into a corner in order to define marriage as between a man and a woman, legally, so that we will not be unjustly and arbitrarily sued.
-
-
-

Oh my! That's terrible! Well we had something similar; over here gay adoption is legal, so Catholic Agencies got worried about whether or not they had to put children in the care of same sex couples. Luckily the Prime Minister provided an exemption. Over here religious people do not have to violate their consciences unless they are running a public service as opposed to a private one, in line with the anti-discrimination laws.

.
.
While I don't advocate homosexuality (nor do I put it totally in the bin of unpardonable as it is only one of many sins...and we are all infected with sin) my feeling is this:

A 'YES' vote on Prop. 8 = "Please legislate my religious morals."

Get this ball rolling and it will only gain momentum.

My vote is NO on 8!
.
.

This seems a bad argument, we already legislate morality, murder, rape, child abuse, cheating, lending laws and regulations, many of which directly come from religious beliefs.

zoegirl wrote:This seems a bad argument, we already legislate morality, murder, rape, child abuse, cheating, lending laws and regulations, many of which directly come from religious beliefs.

True, but none are exclusively "religious" morals.
.
.

BavarianWheels wrote:

zoegirl wrote:This seems a bad argument, we already legislate morality, murder, rape, child abuse, cheating, lending laws and regulations, many of which directly come from religious beliefs.

True, but none are exclusively "religious" morals.
.
.

Homosexuality being less than desireable is not an exclusively religious moral either!

Harry12345 wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:

zoegirl wrote:This seems a bad argument, we already legislate morality, murder, rape, child abuse, cheating, lending laws and regulations, many of which directly come from religious beliefs.

True, but none are exclusively "religious" morals.
.
.

Homosexuality being less than desireable is not an exclusively religious moral either!

And i doubt very much that denying people their rights is 'what God prefers', Mrs cslewislover.
It's not a choice, it really isn't. And God would probably like us to spread the love, and not to discriminate. And if that love is between two people of the same sex, that's absolutely fine by me

Definately! I'm a dude, and I love my brother, my dad and most of all, Jesus Christ! They're all men... but in no way is my relationship with them sexual.

Sex with other men? That's something different entirely to love.