Evidence for God from Science

What RIGHT exactly are they fighting for? How are they considered a civil rights movement? It shocks me. They have always had the right to vote, they have always been free, they have always been employed equally, so why do they cry injustice? Simple, this is not a civil rights movement , it is a in your face, accept us even if you disagree with our lifestyle movement. Why else do they have parades where members commit sodomy in front of children? It is to simply shock and offend not to gain rights.

Some gays would argue marriage Rights correct? Ok, that’s fine, why do atheist not get married then? Many atheist get civil unions (which have all, and I mean all, the same rights as marriage). Marriage is a religious institution and the government has absolutely no right to mandate churches to marry gays. Look at churches that have been sued for millions of dollars, rich churches that have missions, orphanages, and hospitals, all of a sudden closed because of a civil law suit because the stuck to their beliefs. How many adoption centers have been closed by the catholic church rather than give married gays children? Its horrible, this movement does nothing but shock, offend, and even degrade homosexuals. Even as one who is generally light on the topic of homosexuality, looking in to this movement it has really changed my view on its legitimacy.

Hi Murray
I guess really they are arguing over an ideal, they want to be viewed as having equal right as everyone else.
I am happy for them to have all the same rights as i do, but i do find it highly offensive for them wanting marriage.
If they want me to respect their rights maybe they should respect mine first, marriage is a Christain concept and should remain so.
At the end of the day all they are really arguing about is a word, really you have to ask yourself who is really behind this movement.

Your Friend in Christ
Daniel

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Hi Murray
I guess really they are arguing over an ideal, they want to be viewed as having equal right as everyone else.
I am happy for them to have all the same rights as i do, but i do find it highly offensive for them wanting marriage.
If they want me to respect their rights maybe they should respect mine first, marriage is a Christain concept and should remain so.
At the end of the day all they are really arguing about is a word, really you have to ask yourself who is really behind this movement.

Your Friend in Christ
Daniel

Right on the dot

The question, if it goes to the gay marriage topic, really gets complicated. In a society not governed by any morality that is not just popular/liberal opinion, what is to stop polygomy, beastiality, or pedophilia from becoming completely legal systems of human sexuality? There really isn't anything.

By not having solid limits on what constitutes normal sexual behavior, the greatest limit of all is placed on it: lack of self-restraint. That's when all hell breaks loose... and I'm hoping some sanity finds its way into society before then.

This could almost spark a debate on objective morality, just saying.

dorkmaster wrote:This could almost spark a debate on objective morality, just saying.

If they respond directly and on topic to my original post it shoudn't

Danieltwotwenty wrote:If they want me to respect their rights maybe they should respect mine first, marriage is a Christain concept and should remain so

Marriage predates Christ. It is not a Christian concept any more than it is a Islamic, Judaic, legal or social concept. You do not have ownership.

^

Yes your right it does pre-date christ and it does exist in islam and judaism, that is where you stop being correct.
Read up on leviticus law so you can understand where jews stand on the topic
Or read up on sharia law to understand how islam is.

The fact is marriage is a religous institution, it is performed to bond man and women under god.

If marriage is not religous may I ask why so many atheist get civil unions (all the same benefits of marriage) instead of being married.

I assume the answer should be very clear to you.

And explain this, why right do gays have to sue churches for millions of dollars because they stick to their beliefs? No answer to that I suppose correct? Do you agree with how the government allows gays to sue churches that stick to their beliefs? You know the churches with hospitals, orphanages, charitiys, missions, schools, and shelters all over the world.

^

Yes your right it does pre-date christ and it does exist in islam and judaism, that is where you stop being correct.
Read up on leviticus law so you can understand where jews stand on the topic
Or read up on sharia law to understand how islam is.

The fact is marriage is a religous institution, it is performed to bond man and women under god.

If marriage is not religous may I ask why so many atheist get civil unions (all the same benefits of marriage) instead of being married.

I assume the answer should be very clear to you.

And explain this, why right do gays have to sue churches for millions of dollars because they stick to their beliefs? No answer to that I suppose correct? Do you agree with how the government allows gays to sue churches that stick to their beliefs? You know the churches with hospitals, orphanages, charitiys, missions, schools, and shelters all over the world.

^

Yes your right it does pre-date christ and it does exist in islam and judaism, that is where you stop being correct.
Read up on leviticus law so you can understand where jews stand on the topic
Or read up on sharia law to understand how islam is.

The fact is marriage is a religous institution, it is performed to bond man and women under god.

If marriage is not religous may I ask why so many atheist get civil unions (all the same benefits of marriage) instead of being married.

I assume the answer should be very clear to you.

And explain this, why right do gays have to sue churches for millions of dollars because they stick to their beliefs? No answer to that I suppose correct? Do you agree with how the government allows gays to sue churches that stick to their beliefs? You know the churches with hospitals, orphanages, charitiys, missions, schools, and shelters all over the world.

Gay men and women are fighting for legal recognition for marriage NOT religious recognition. The reason why it is important to correctly identify this is because Churches CAN marry anyone they want with no legal confirmation (which is why some marry dogs to each other it is kind strange!). It is just a ceremony. Not legally binding in it of itself. Churches can keep gay marriage out of the church as much as they want. Nothing says you must use someone religious for it to be marriage (though Christian weddings are pretty!).

However, when we speak of the legal contract of marriage, it would be against other laws we currently have on file in the United States to not allow two people to enter into a consensual contract. The constitution protects people from experiencing bias due to race, religion, sex, etc. Notice the word "sex". And I mean that as gender.

Now what prevents people from marrying animals? Well animals can't give consent. Children? Nope. They can't give consent so why are you worrying about this?

What about multiple people? Well, marriage is a contract between two people. (though we are assuming these are consenting adults... I guess why not? it is in the bible and smiled on by God even... sooooo)

So I really don't see the big deal. I am happily married to my husband and I don't see how someone else getting married and being happy would make my marriage suck or something.

Jonouchi Katsuya wrote:Gay men and women are fighting for legal recognition for marriage NOT religious recognition. The reason why it is important to correctly identify this is because Churches CAN marry anyone they want with no legal confirmation (which is why some marry dogs to each other it is kind strange!). It is just a ceremony. Not legally binding in it of itself. Churches can keep gay marriage out of the church as much as they want. Nothing says you must use someone religious for it to be marriage (though Christian weddings are pretty!).

However, when we speak of the legal contract of marriage, it would be against other laws we currently have on file in the United States to not allow two people to enter into a consensual contract. The constitution protects people from experiencing bias due to race, religion, sex, etc. Notice the word "sex". And I mean that as gender.

Now what prevents people from marrying animals? Well animals can't give consent. Children? Nope. They can't give consent so why are you worrying about this?

What about multiple people? Well, marriage is a contract between two people. (though we are assuming these are consenting adults... I guess why not? it is in the bible and smiled on by God even... sooooo)

So I really don't see the big deal. I am happily married to my husband and I don't see how someone else getting married and being happy would make my marriage suck or something.

I dont think anyone here is denying them the same legal rights as straight people, but the concept of "marriage" is a Christain/Judeo one meaning the union of a man and woman. Homosexuals in my country can have a civil union and will have all the same legal right's as myself and my wife, atheists also if they so choose can have a civil union. The act of a homosexual marriage directly mocks and riddicules what i believe and hurts me deeply, why does their right to use our ideal out weight my right to practice my religion freely. Why are they arguing about a word that hold's no meaning to them and directly affects people for who it does hold meaning, from a Christain standpoint i know the answer but if i was to look at it objectively they would have no claim on marriage and should settle for a civil union or call it somthing completely different.
Your Friend in Christ
Daniel

Churches can keep gay marriage out of the church as much as they want. Nothing says you must use someone religious for it to be marriage (though Christian weddings are pretty!).

That is flat out false. Take for example that church in california, a rich one with missions in africa, refused to perform a gay marrage, sued for millions, bankrupt, no more missions to africa, this will be common place soon. Do some research to states that legalize gay marriage, its awful what they do to churches.

Most recently every single catholic orphanage in iowa shut down because a court ordered them to give children to gays and having faith in their religon and practicing it, they refused and thus got shut down. Hundreds of children, no home anymore

Murray wrote:Yes your right it does pre-date christ and it does exist in islam and judaism, that is where you stop being correct.
Read up on leviticus law so you can understand where jews stand on the topic
Or read up on sharia law to understand how islam is.

The fact is marriage is a religous institution, it is performed to bond man and women under god.

If marriage is not religous may I ask why so many atheist get civil unions (all the same benefits of marriage) instead of being married.

I assume the answer should be very clear to you.

And explain this, why right do gays have to sue churches for millions of dollars because they stick to their beliefs? No answer to that I suppose correct? Do you agree with how the government allows gays to sue churches that stick to their beliefs? You know the churches with hospitals, orphanages, charitiys, missions, schools, and shelters all over the world.

Claiming ownership is not the same as having ownership. Try quoting scripture in a divorce case. The fact is not that marriage includes God, the fact is that some people think it does. There are no shortage of godless marriages, does it matter much if some of these are homosexual marriages? I'm not really bothered if a Christian doesn't consider me married as a personal view but if a Christian doctor tells me I don't have legal rights in life or death medical decisions regarding my wife as his views prevent him from treating me as married then there's gonna be trouble.

I would venture that many atheists enter into civil partnerships due to the religious baggage that marriage carries in many peoples minds. I know some who would like to get married and do their part in further divorcing religions grip on what defines marriage. I'm in Scotland and religion free marriage is fairly easy to come by and rather popular, I've got one! If marriage was a religious institution and getting married meant a religious ceremony I suppose I would have opted for something akin to a civil parntership but here I'm free to enter into a legal and social marriage without any religion. If marriage is religious, I'm not married.

Why do gays have the right to sue Churches? perhaps because the US legal systems takes claims regarding discrimination seriously. If you do a job then you abide by the law of the land, if religious views prevent one from carrying out job requirements without discriminating against perfectly legal aspects of the job then one should get another job. I occasionally have to register marriages and divorces as part of my job, if I refused to update someone's record to married as I did not believe the marriage was Christian and from God then I would expect not to be doing my job for long.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:I dont think anyone here is denying them the same legal rights as straight people, but the concept of "marriage" is a Christain/Judeo one meaning the union of a man and woman. Homosexuals in my country can have a civil union and will have all the same legal right's as myself and my wife, atheists also if they so choose can have a civil union. The act of a homosexual marriage directly mocks and riddicules what i believe and hurts me deeply, why does their right to use our ideal out weight my right to practice my religion freely. Why are they arguing about a word that hold's no meaning to them and directly affects people for who it does hold meaning, from a Christain standpoint i know the answer but if i was to look at it objectively they would have no claim on marriage and should settle for a civil union or call it somthing completely different.
Your Friend in Christ
Daniel

The concept of marriage is not a Judeo/Christian one, it's common to all societies. Saying it is a Judeo/Christian concept doesn't prove that it is.
Why are they arguing about a word which means nothing to them? they aren't. It does mean something to them, admittedly it may not match your meaning and that meaning me not have much in the way of religion or God about it.

Murray wrote:Most recently every single catholic orphanage in iowa shut down because a court ordered them to give children to gays and having faith in their religon and practicing it, they refused and thus got shut down. Hundreds of children, no home anymore

Hundreds of children with no homes thanks to people standing up for their faith. They were given the choice and they chose to abandon the children. Better no homes at all than some gay households seems pretty unreasonable to me but each to their own.

Why do gays have the right to sue Churches? perhaps because the US legal systems takes claims regarding discrimination seriously. If you do a job then you abide by the law of the land, if religious views prevent one from carrying out job requirements without discriminating against perfectly legal aspects of the job then one should get another job. I occasionally have to register marriages and divorces as part of my job, if I refused to update someone's record to married as I did not believe the marriage was Christian and from God then I would expect not to be doing my job for long.

Does this not violate your favorite term "seperation of church and state"?

You said it yourself, you do not need a church to perform a marriage, so then why bother? What other purpose other than trying to shove it in their face does forcing a church to perform a marriage serve?

These gays made the choice to go to the church to become married the church refused, that should be it. But they got the aclu to file a claim and the church got sued millions, retracted their missions in africa, and went bankrupt and the gays were just happy to be swimming in millions.

The government should have no rule over legal religous practice, the bible is clear, we are not to marry gays, so why can the government force us to change this?