Smart people don't believe in god...

[random evil guy]

which is my point. marriage is nothing but a legal contract. i see no real reason, other than moral values, to why gay couples shouldn't be allowed to married.

 

...and moral values differ from person to person.

 

EDIT:

btw, this thread is going in all kinds of direction at the same time now. what are we really discussing here? moral values and gay rights? that the christian church is evil or the evolution theory?

 

if it is evolution, then i'd recommend http://www.talkorigins.org/

i like that site. very informative and pretty objective.

[Lucius]

Also Ros, I think there's a world of difference between meeting Christians, even fairly religious Christians in Denmark than those you'd encounter in Iowa. ^_^

[SteveThaiBinh]

If a gay couple wish to marry, and wish to call it marriage and not 'civil union', they should do so, and the state should recognise it. The state has no business enforcing one particular belief system over another, provided no-one's rights are harmed. I sincerely regret that some Christian conservatives believe that gays marrying somehow cheapens their own (heterosexual) marriages. It doesn't, in fact it's quite an extraordinary idea, and will soon be consigned to the dustbin of history, I hope.

[Darth Flatus]

stupid reality shows like joe millionaire and the bachelor cheapen marriage.... and jennifer lopez.

[Rosbjerg]

Religion is for weaklings who need to believe in fairy tales to survive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You know I had the exact same opinion when I was twelve ..

 

Also Ros, I think there's a world of difference between meeting Christians, even fairly religious Christians in Denmark than those you'd encounter in Iowa. ^_^

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I know .. nothing more fun than to rub in the obvious from time to time! "

[FaramirK]

Marriage is nothing but a contract, in the eyes of law its no diferent that renting a house.

 

In a legal point of view there is no reason to deny same sex couples of marriage.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If thats how society defines marriage, then same sex couples should have the same right.

[Lucius]

You know I had the exact same opinion when I was twelve ..

I don't think I personally had a concept of religion when I was twelve, though I do think I thought it silly... a bit like I do now. ^_^

 

I know .. nothing more fun than to rub in the obvious from time to time!  "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What do you mean?

[213374U]

Nevertheless, if I were going to pass judgement on ancient Greek culture, I would say that the practice of 30+ year old men marrying girls in their early or even pre-teens was worse.  What of that, though?  It's something despicable to our age, but the Greeks had a flourishing society and a vast treasure of literary and philosophical works.  What are we to think of a civilization that is long gone but provided the foundation for so many academic principles of our own day?

That's not a matter of applying our notions to a historical context in which the social values were completely different. It is a widely accepted fact that when children are exposed to sex, it leaves serious psychological sequels that last for their entire life. Homosexuality, as far as I know, does not.

 

 

Religion is for weaklings who need to believe in fairy tales to survive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You know I had the exact same opinion when I was twelve ..

Well, he is twelve, and has proven so countless times. What did you expect?

[FaramirK]

which is my point. marriage is nothing but a legal contract. i see no real reason, other than moral values, to why gay couples shouldn't be allowed to married.

 

Granted, but should they be allowed to adopt children?

 

Homosexual and heterosexual relationships based on love/companionship etc are different from Family Building which is exclusively heterosexual, simply because thats how human reproduction functions.

 

Do you disagree with the above?

 

...and moral values differ from person to person.

 

Which is why one persons morality should never be forced on another.

 

EDIT:

btw, this thread is going in all kinds of direction at the same time now. what are we really discussing here? moral values and gay rights? that the christian church is evil or the evolution theory?

 

I guess its up to you, as the author to say when we've go off-topic.

[FaramirK]

The only religion that shouldn't be banned is a religion of tolerance.

 

If you ban something, you are 'intolerant' to it. Your statement is ridiculous. People like you are the most intolerant...right up there with the fringe-right Christians in the USA.

 

And I think you are giving Volitare a little too much credit...

[213374U]

The only religion that shouldn't be banned is a religion of tolerance.

 

If you ban something, you are 'intolerant' to it. Your statement is ridiculous. People like you are the most intolerant...right up there with the fringe-right Christians in the USA.

LOL.

 

Hey Nur, there's somebody here that wants to have a word with you...

 

[Nur Ab Sal]

Flaming as always.

 

One sentence was extremely stupid:

I know you hate to see yourself as a believer, but you are one. Science is your religion. But perhaps you should know your religion a little better before lunging forward like that

That's quite false. Science is built on evidences and logic while religion is built on superstitions and unproven speculations. Drakron isn't a believer - he only embraces facts.

 

And BTW I don't believe in evolution theory, cause it's bullsh...

[Sarjahurmaaja.]

CorleOWNED

I LOLed.

 

:">

[Darth Flatus]

flaming has its uses

[FaramirK]

Flaming as always.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well I wasn't flaming, so stop skirting the issue. I wrote this a few pages back and your statement warrents its return.

 

Who is of stronger convictions? The one who tolerates the opposition and actively supports their right to government protection from violent bigots, or the one who angrily and provocatively attacks your beliefs and hates everything you stand for enough to seek that your religion and beliefs are banned?

[random evil guy]

which is my point. marriage is nothing but a legal contract. i see no real reason, other than moral values, to why gay couples shouldn't be allowed to married.

 

Granted, but should they be allowed to adopt children?

 

Homosexual and heterosexual relationships based on love/companionship etc are different from Family Building which is exclusively heterosexual, simply because thats how human reproduction functions.

 

Do you disagree with the above?

 

...and moral values differ from person to person.

 

Which is why one persons morality should never be forced on another.

 

EDIT:

btw, this thread is going in all kinds of direction at the same time now. what are we really discussing here? moral values and gay rights? that the christian church is evil or the evolution theory?

 

I guess its up to you, as the author to say when we've go off-topic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

1.i don't see why not. or let me put it this way, i want gay couples to be allowed to adopt kids, so that the kids will get the best parents possible. excactely how one decides which couple is more suited than another, is something i haven't given much thought. i just don't want to see people being discriminated purely on their sexual preferences...

 

2.i agree, but isn't that what the christians are doing in this matter? they believe homosexuality to be a sin and gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt.

 

3.ok, i guess we'll leave the whole evolution thing aside and focus on this issue for now. :cool:

[SteveThaiBinh]

Granted, but should they be allowed to adopt children? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Allowed by whom? Who has the right to deny this? On what grounds? For the state to justify denying gay couples the right to adopt, it would need to present fairly strong evidence that gay people are less able to raise children well then heterosexual people. I doubt that such evidence exists.

[SteveThaiBinh]

And BTW I don't believe in evolution theory, cause it's bullsh...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not aware of any major weaknesses. As with any theory, it's not proven or provable, it's merely the best explanation of the available evidence. What evidence have creationists put forwards against it?

[FaramirK]

1.i don't see why not. or let me put it this way, i want gay couples to be allowed to adopt kids, so that the kids will get the best parents possible. excactely how one decides which couple is more suited than another, is something i haven't given much thought. i just don't want to see people being discriminated purely on their sexual preferences...

 

I don't want people to be discriminated against at all, but disqualifying someone isn't always negative discrimination. I again ask how well two gay men would relate to a little girl, but since there are so many singleparent families today, I think its a moot point if society already has such a casual view of marital fidelity.

 

2.i agree, but isn't that what the christians are doing in this matter? they believe homosexuality to be a sin and gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt.

 

I can't speak for every christian, but I don't mix my religion with my social agenda to support a free society. My questioning gay couples legally adopting children has nothing to do with my personal views of homosexuality. I only suggest that the children may be baised against heterosexual relationships, since the idea of a "gay" family unit is a synthetic invention, not a result of natural process.

[FaramirK]

And BTW I don't believe in evolution theory, cause it's bullsh...

 

As an Atheist, what is your creation belief?

[SteveThaiBinh]

I can't speak for every christian, but I don't mix my religion with my social agenda to support a free society.  My questioning gay couples legally adopting children has nothing to do with my personal views of homosexuality.  I only suggest that the children may be baised against heterosexual relationships, since the idea of a "gay" family unit is a synthetic invention, not a result of natural process.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Monogamous marriage and nuclear families are synthetic inventions, not the result of natural process. They are part of Western culture, or rather they have been at times, and usually more in theory than in practice (how many pious married men have mistresses?) There are other cultures where these are not the norm at all.

[FaramirK]

Monogamous marriage and nuclear families are synthetic inventions,

 

Agreed. But every culture has a tradition of how children are to be raised, and some sort of marriage custom.

 

There are other cultures where these are not the norm at all.

 

Every culture has a way of organising families, its the foundation of society. No society, has ever had gay marriage and gay couples raising children. There are even cultures where men and women are exclusively homosexual until they are married, and even they don't have gay marriage.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Monogamous marriage and nuclear families are synthetic inventions,

 

Agreed. But every culture has a tradition of how children are to be raised, and some sort of marriage custom.

 

There are other cultures where these are not the norm at all.

 

Every culture has a way of organising families, its the foundation of society. No society, has ever had gay marriage and gay couples raising children. There are even cultures where men and women are exclusively homosexual until they are married, and even they don't have gay marriage.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I suppose what I'm saying is that there is no biologically-determined best kind of family for raising children, and as that is so, we should value all different kinds unless there is good reason not to. And there is now at least one culture where homosexual parents are raising children, and that's ours. Given the imperfect record of heterosexual parents in this regard, I'm keeping an open mind.

 

It is not for homosexuals to persuade anyone else that they are good enough to be treated like heterosexuals. This entire discourse is assuming that homosexuals are somehow in deficit, and need to prove themselves fit to raise children. Standards of good parenting are the point here, not the sexual orientation of the parents.

 

EDIT: Sorry, this really is getting badly off topic.

[Cantousent]

Nevertheless, if I were going to pass judgement on ancient Greek culture, I would say that the practice of 30+ year old men marrying girls in their early or even pre-teens was worse.  What of that, though?  It's something despicable to our age, but the Greeks had a flourishing society and a vast treasure of literary and philosophical works.  What are we to think of a civilization that is long gone but provided the foundation for so many academic principles of our own day?

That's not a matter of applying our notions to a historical context in which the social values were completely different. It is a widely accepted fact that when children are exposed to sex, it leaves serious psychological sequels that last for their entire life. Homosexuality, as far as I know, does not.

 

Yeah, I have to concede the point. That particular arrangement is wrong. ...And we must call it what it is. I spend most of my time reading ancient Greek literature and discussion ancient Greek culture, but I would fight like hell the idea that we should allow this particular practice. Adults should not have sex with children.

 

 

Religion is for weaklings who need to believe in fairy tales to survive.

 

You know I had the exact same opinion when I was twelve ..

Well, he is twelve, and has proven so countless times. What did you expect?

 

I laughed out loud. I doubt Ros is 12, but, dammit, it was still funny. Sorry Ros.

[Cantousent]

EDIT: Sorry, this really is getting badly off topic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

HA! We haven't even known the topic for quite some time. Hell, I think the last person to make a point actually dealing with the original topic was taks.