149 replies to this topic

[Alakhriveion]

Again, that varies. As far as mainstream western culture goes, it is the case. Swingers and frat boys dont' count.

"Mainstream Western" isn't "Natural Human." I also didn't allow masturbation for a few thousand years, and we know people do that naturally.

Partially economic, more emotional.

The design of the family unit is economic. Emotional attachments can follow or precede it, but there's a reason arranged marriages are the most common kind.

[SteveT]

Humans are nature as well, no matter how you twist or turn it.

Alak's the one trying to seperate the two.

"Mainstream Western" isn't "Natural Human." I also didn't allow masturbation for a few thousand years, and we know people do that naturally.

So marraige is a cultural thing more than natural. Culture still predates law.

The design of the family unit is economic.

Family units existed before economy. Family units are very helpful for survival.

[Alakhriveion]

Alak's the one trying to seperate the two.

I am not. Niether of us is, from what I can tell.

So marraige is a cultural thing more than natural. Culture still predates law.

But marriage does not. It isn't an all-or-nothing thing, we had society before marriage, we had culture before marriage. Not ALL animals have monogamy, and we don't just because some do.

Family units existed before economy. Family units are very helpful for survival.

They didn't exist before argiculture. We naturally form packs and tribes, not families, but the new circumstance required a different model, which we still use. I do believe it's a good idea, but I don't know why it's a legal standard.

[SteveT]

We naturally form packs and tribes, not families, but the new circumstance required a different model, which we still use.

Tell me, Alak, if you had a tribe, who would be in it? That one simple question pretty much settles this debate, and not in your favor.

[Oberon Storm]

Why is marriage in the law AT ALL? We've outgrown state churches, burning witches, and the rest, but we still give tax breaks to people for supporting a religious principle?

It isn't a religious principle. Christians aren't the only ones that have marriage. And Marriage, or some form of it, was around before Christianity was. Back in the day it was an economic thing. Today love has been thrown in with it, but it still isn't a religious principle.

[Coltxdoom]

Hero of Winds you said that you are for gay civil unions but not gay marriage, isn't that basically the same thing?

And what about homosexual Christians, don't you think they deserve to have their marriage reconized by God (Lets ignore the fact that you think it's wrong for a sec..just think about it )

[SteveT]

And what about homosexual Christians, don't you think they deserve to have their marriage reconized by God

That's a question for God, not for Hero of Winds. Legalizing homosexual marraige won't MAKE God recognize the marraige. Unless he actually does, that's a huge violation of "Don't take the name of God in vain."

[Selena]

I think he meant himself, not America in general.


You people wanted him, you have him.

[Korhend]

Just goes to show, everything I said about democracy is true.

[Oberon Storm]

You're right. Jews and Hindus were in on it too.

And Romans, Greeks, and just about everyone else.

[Oberon Storm]

And mine is that it's not.

[Coltxdoom]

That's a question for God, not for Hero of Winds.  Legalizing homosexual marraige won't MAKE God recognize the marraige.  Unless he actually does, that's a huge violation of "Don't take the name of God in vain."

Yeah but God can't reconize somethng that is against authority, so legalization DOES matter.

[SteveT]

Yeah but God can't reconize somethng that is against authority, so legalization DOES matter.

Erm...what? God rules humans, not the other way around.

[Alakhriveion]

Debatable, but I won't go there. Anyway, I think she's trying to say that since humans don't know the mind of god, we should at least give it a chance.

[Coltxdoom]

Erm...what?  God rules humans, not the other way around.

Duh. That isn't what I was saying. What I was saying is that God wouldn't reconize a marriage that would be considered illigal by the states because that would be dishonoring authority and that would say that God isn't perfect therefore creating a paradox.

So if it were made legal then in the church--they could get married and it would be reconized by him because it would be in his house. I don't think he's against gay marriage but thats a whole different issue entirely, eh?

[SteveT]

Ah, but you forget the clause where if a rule contradicts with God's rules, you don't have to follow it.

[Coltxdoom]

Legalizing gay marriage wouldn't be against God's law so it shouldn't be against the law in the first place

[SteveT]

I think you missed the point. I was referring to this specific line:

What I was saying is that God wouldn't reconize a marriage that would be considered illigal by the states because that would be dishonoring authority and that would say that God isn't perfect therefore creating a paradox.

If God approved of gay marriage, he woudln't care whether or not the state allowed it. I see no correlation between doing something God likes but man doesn't and proven God to be imperfect.

Anyway, until the whole world is Christian, we can't legislate Christian values.

[inuyashafanR]

Anyway, until the whole world is Christian, we can't legislate Christian values.

but we already have, even if you can't see it, we have

[SteveT]

Yes, we have, and that's generally a bad thing.

The only moral basis for law shoudl be in defining rights, because there's no other way to come up with them.

[thabto81]

No, 'sloppy and uncaring' would be nuking Fallujah. Which wouldn't bother some people I know, I might add. Fortunately, I'm not along those lines. We're being very nice about this. Practically to our detriment. We're walking on eggshells to get the bad guys while trying to do as little harm as we can to innocents and property. Again, I'm going to respond to another widely-held view (not neccessarily yours, mind) that we're not winning any supporters. On the contrary, I hear on the radio now and again how support for our troops is growing, and how the Iraqis are turning against the radicalist elements in their country, who are, comparatively, doing more damage to them than we are.

And yet those same radicalists wouldn't be blowing up their own people if we hadn't invaded in the first place. You can defer responsibilty for the 100,000+ dead Iraqi civilians as much as you want, but the bottom line is that we are fundamentally responsible for each and every death in this war.

No. It was Saddam Hussein trying to get cute over the wrong issue. I might remind you I support the war in Iraq. I don't consider it a failure. I still say we outnumber France, Germany, Belgium and Russia.

Why? Because we have a bigger military? And, again, you're defering responsibility. What Saddam did was stupid no doubt, but would it have killed us to wait for Hans Blix and the UN inspectors to finish their Iraqi weapons inspections?

Of course it isn't. It's because we're the ones hosting the U.N. on our soil; because we give more in aid and support to other countries every year than most of the rest of the world combined; because we were one of the few nations not profiteering under the Oil For Food scandal; because we're doing the responsible thing by finally enforcing a U.N. resolution over a potentially dangerous issue, instead of bending over backward to short-sighted political pressures; and because we have the support of 40+ nations, large and small, across the world.

Whoops! Check your sources. We were doing plenty of profiting on the Oil for Food scandal according to the New York Times:

"Major American oil companies and a Texas oil investor were among those who received lucrative vouchers that enabled them to buy Iraqi oil under the United Nations oil-for-food program, according to a report prepared by the chief arms inspector for the Central Intelligence Agency.

"The 918-page report says that four American oil companies - Chevron, Mobil, Texaco and Bay Oil - and three individuals including Oscar S. Wyatt Jr. of Houston were given vouchers and got 111 million barrels of oil between them from 1996 to 2003. The vouchers allowed them to profit by selling the oil or the right to trade it."

Excuse me? Did somebody say 'illegal?' I'm sorry, I didn't realize the U.N. is the world's authority? If they were, they wouldn't have passed resolution after resolution saying the same thing, promising the same thing, and delivering on nothing. Kofi Annan does not rule the world, sorry to say. The U.N. is where the world comes to share viewpoints. It is not the final say. It has no business ruling anything 'illegal.' And a lot of countries, again, supported our move.

Your lack of sources disturbs me:

"The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.

"Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: 'Yes, if you wish.'

"He then added unequivocally: 'I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal.'"

Source

Last time I checked, the US was part of the UN. Last time I checked, if you were going to be a part of the UN you had to abide by it's charter. Last time I checked, breaking or undermining the UN charter was illegal.

Oh, and please don't put words into my mouth. I never once said the UN was an authority over the world nor did I call Kofi Annan its ruler. So how 'bout we calm down and try and remain civilized, hm?

[Coltxdoom]

I think you missed the point.  I was referring to this specific line:  



If God approved of gay marriage, he woudln't care whether or not the state allowed it.  I see no correlation between doing something God likes but man doesn't and proven God to be imperfect.

Anyway, until the whole world is Christian, we can't legislate Christian values.

As true as that is, he still wants us to obey our authorities, he says so himself in the bible. So wouldn't that include making it legal?

If not, a priest woudln't do something illigal..that too is against the Lord's laws

[SteveT]

He wants us to obey authorities so long as they do not prevent us from following his laws.

If God approves of gay marriage, he doesnt' care if it's legal. If God wants two dudes to marry, but the state doesn't want them to, they're not sinning by getting married.

[Flint]

Ermm... if we hated him why did we elect him?  
Seriously people chill.

That doesn't make any sense. LoS didn't elect him.

[Alakhriveion]

Yes, we have, and that's generally a bad thing.

The only moral basis for law shoudl be in defining rights, because there's no other way to come up with them.

Word.