The Bible

[Shoeless Eluder]

"From a religious viewpoint, homosexuality is morally wrong" FLbeaver . Which religion are you talking about? There are so many

[Really]

SeenItBefore wrote:

<quoted text>
What numbers would that be? You mean the numbers of gays that have been ostracized, discriminated against, mugged and yes even killed?
Do the numbers really matter to you? If only a relatively few women are raped does the relatively low number make it more acceptable to you? If only a small number of children are physically abused does the relatively low number make it acceptable to you?
But then again we are back to who is expecting who to back up their claims and doing the research. I thought it was you that always does and I, us progressives, don't. So for lack of "the numbers" you can deny it has happened?

No, as a matter of fact I don't deny it has happened. Despite your low opinion of conservatives, we do read and follow the issues that are happening in this country. Unlike you, however, we don't believe everything is a crisis that needs more laws that won't be enforced. We believe in enforcing the laws on the books. So you can take your self righteous nose out of the air and try breathing normally. It might help your ability to get along with your fellow human beings.

[SeenItBefore]

Really wrote:

<quoted text>No, as a matter of fact I don't deny it has happened. Despite your low opinion of conservatives, we do read and follow the issues that are happening in this country. Unlike you, however, we don't believe everything is a crisis that needs more laws that won't be enforced. We believe in enforcing the laws on the books. So you can take your self righteous nose out of the air and try breathing normally. It might help your ability to get along with your fellow human beings.

Oh really. So why is gay marriage a "crisis" to be stopped? Seems as it viewed as crisis enough for the Defense of Marriage Act. That wasn't a new law? That was just the need for a new law that now needs to be enforced huh. And just what was the need for a law to "protect marriage" when conservatives have such a low opinion of government controlling people's live?

And yes I know Clinton signed it. Of which he has recanted on now.

My low opinion of conservatives is no where near yours of progressives. I have respect for true conservatives. Not the "conservatives" by name only we have today.

[Really]

SeenItBefore wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh really. So why is gay marriage a "crisis" to be stopped? Seems as it viewed as crisis enough for the Defense of Marriage Act. That wasn't a new law? That was just the need for a new law that now needs to be enforced huh. And just what was the need for a law to "protect marriage" when conservatives have such a low opinion of government controlling people's live?
And yes I know Clinton signed it. Of which he has recanted on now.
My low opinion of conservatives is no where near yours of progressives. I have respect for true conservatives. Not the "conservatives" by name only we have today.

Then we agree on something since a true progessive is one I can find common ground with, unlike the progressives of today who are only interested in destroying the country that has allowed them the freedoms they are now attempting to remove for everyone. As for the Defense of Marriage Act and Clinton's recanting of it..it's BS..he is recanting because it's politically expedient to do so. He's a snake in the grass on the same order as Obama.

[SeenItBefore]

Really wrote:

<quoted text>Then we agree on something since a true progessive is one I can find common ground with, unlike the progressives of today who are only interested in destroying the country that has allowed them the freedoms they are now attempting to remove for everyone. As for the Defense of Marriage Act and Clinton's recanting of it..it's BS..he is recanting because it's politically expedient to do so. He's a snake in the grass on the same order as Obama.

Backwards again! It was politically expedient to sign it.
Statement by President Bill Clinton

On Friday, September 20, prior to signing the Defense of Marriage Act, President Clinton released the following statement:

Throughout my life I have strenuously opposed discrimination of any kind, including discrimination against gay and lesbian Americans. I am signing into law H.R. 3396, a bill relating to same-gender marriage, but it is important to note what this legislation does and does not do.

I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages and this legislation is consistent with that position. The Act confirms the right of each state to determine its own policy with respect to same gender marriage and clarifies for purposes of federal law the operative meaning of the terms "marriage" and "spouse".

This legislation does not reach beyond those two provisions. It has no effect on any current federal, state or local anti-discrimination law and does not constrain the right of Congress or any state or locality to enact anti-discrimination laws. I therefore would take this opportunity to urge Congress to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, an act which would extend employment discrimination protections to gays and lesbians in the workplace. This year the Senate considered this legislation contemporaneously with the Act I sign today and failed to pass it by a single vote. I hope that in its next Session Congress will pass it expeditiously.

I also want to make clear to all that the enactment of this legislation should not, despite the fierce and at times divisive rhetoric surrounding it, be understood to provide an excuse for discrimination, violence or intimidation against any person on the basis of sexual orientation. Discrimination, violence and intimidation for that reason, as well as others, violate the principle of equal protection under the law and have no place in American society.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/scotts/ftp/...

[vox veritatis]

Shoeless Eluder wrote:

"From a religious viewpoint, homosexuality is morally wrong" FLbeaver . Which religion are you talking about? There are so many

Several...Islam, Judaism, Mormonism, Christianity, Bahai just to name a few.

[Really]

SeenItBefore wrote:

<quoted text>
Backwards again! It was politically expedient to sign it.
Statement by President Bill Clinton
On Friday, September 20, prior to signing the Defense of Marriage Act, President Clinton released the following statement:
Throughout my life I have strenuously opposed discrimination of any kind, including discrimination against gay and lesbian Americans. I am signing into law H.R. 3396, a bill relating to same-gender marriage, but it is important to note what this legislation does and does not do.
I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages and this legislation is consistent with that position. The Act confirms the right of each state to determine its own policy with respect to same gender marriage and clarifies for purposes of federal law the operative meaning of the terms "marriage" and "spouse".
This legislation does not reach beyond those two provisions. It has no effect on any current federal, state or local anti-discrimination law and does not constrain the right of Congress or any state or locality to enact anti-discrimination laws. I therefore would take this opportunity to urge Congress to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, an act which would extend employment discrimination protections to gays and lesbians in the workplace. This year the Senate considered this legislation contemporaneously with the Act I sign today and failed to pass it by a single vote. I hope that in its next Session Congress will pass it expeditiously.
I also want to make clear to all that the enactment of this legislation should not, despite the fierce and at times divisive rhetoric surrounding it, be understood to provide an excuse for discrimination, violence or intimidation against any person on the basis of sexual orientation. Discrimination, violence and intimidation for that reason, as well as others, violate the principle of equal protection under the law and have no place in American society.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/scotts/ftp/...

Yes, I remember that speech and I thought then he was only doing it because it was politically expedient. This time around, he wants dear wifey in the WH in 2016, so it's politically expedient to repudiate a law he endorsed back then. I don't have it backwards, you just can't see the forest for the trees.

[SeenItBefore]

Really wrote:

<quoted text>Yes, I remember that speech and I thought then he was only doing it because it was politically expedient. This time around, he wants dear wifey in the WH in 2016, so it's politically expedient to repudiate a law he endorsed back then. I don't have it backwards, you just can't see the forest for the trees.

Oh of course. and that is a double entendre

[FLBeaver]

Mr Wiggley wrote:

<quoted text>
Your whole post was a waste because of one comment..."The issue is that many don't want to accept the idea of something being morally anything"...
You reveal yourself to be incapable of understanding others due to your warped "moral beliefs" grounded in your religion.

Understanding another doesn't mean I agree with them, or even think they have good points.

Your second paragraph supports my point as you are incapable of articulating a coherent thought much less a logical argument. I'm sure you will disagree so explain how my moral beliefs are warped? Your statement is all encompassing, thus because I believe child rape is morally wrong you must think it is ok since my belief is “morally warped.” Same with slavery, murder, and many others actions which I consider morally wrong.

Also, I haven't equated a moral position with my religion. I've showed how homosexuality is abnormal based on science, never had to go to religion. Unlike you though I’m willing to entertain other points of view. So pick an issue you think we disagree on and show how it is morally ok without simply making it your opinion or the group’s opinion that it is ok. The idea that something is morally right/wrong just because a large number of people agree was shot down centuries ago so please, don’t go there.

[FLBeaver]

Mr Wiggley wrote:

<quoted text>
The definition fits perfectly here...SIN...
Self
Inflicted
Nonsense
No more can be said...

Then please don't. It would be greatly appreciated.

[FLBeaver]

Thor wrote:

<quoted text>
This is a lie.
Marriage developed as a contract between humans long before any organized religion was created. These contracts were largely about property and arrangements. They had nothing to do with religion.
http://ehistory.osu.edu/world/articles/articl...
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2000/1...
Marriage was co-opted by religions much later.

I think you've got things a little backwards. In the first article it says "During the ceremony of betrothal, the girl's future husband poured perfume on her head and brought her presents and provisions. After the wedding, where the couple would live remained the sole issue."

Who do you think oversaw the ceremony?

Going back a bit, part of the difference is how one defines "marriage." Again, referencing your article it talks about how the future husband and the girls father came to terms regarding payments. She had no say. Was that a marriage or slavery? Again, according to your article if the man died she could not leave the family but now had to marry a brother or other relative.

To me, that sounds like slavery that was given an offical name to make it sound ok.

So lets get some agreement on terms. First one is obviously how do you define marriage?

[FLBeaver]

Thor wrote:

<quoted text>
If there was a compelling argument for animals and children being able to give consent, then pedophilia and bestiality would not be convictable offenses.
Your weak argument easily fails.
<quoted text>
Sure, polygamous marriage could be defined as marriage by a government. It has been and does exist in other countries. Marriage has been defined and redefined many times in history by many cultures and governments.
In America it will be simply redefined to include any two consenting adults regardless of s e x, just as it has been in some other countries.
If you want to push polygamy, go ahead and start a petition or movement.
<quoted text>
When religion has to resort to saying something is immoral based solely on their own religious doctrine, it is because they can't make a legitimate, logical argument against it.
This is the case with gay marriage.
The proof is that those who oppose it still cannot come up with a single example of how they will be specifically harmed by gay people getting married.

I'll just address the last point. If homosexual marriage is ok'd then our society has said that morality is defined either by the government or a majority vote.

Moral relativism hurts everyone; the individual and the group.

[FLBeaver]

Shoeless Eluder wrote:

"From a religious viewpoint, homosexuality is morally wrong" FLbeaver . Which religion are you talking about? There are so many

Since we are in the US that would be Christianity, Judaism, Mormonism and Islam. Hinduism and Buddhism seem to accept homosexuality but they represent less than 2% of the population.

[Mr Wiggley]

FLBeaver wrote:

<quoted text>
Understanding another doesn't mean I agree with them, or even think they have good points.
Your second paragraph supports my point as you are incapable of articulating a coherent thought much less a logical argument. I'm sure you will disagree so explain how my moral beliefs are warped? Your statement is all encompassing, thus because I believe child rape is morally wrong you must think it is ok since my belief is “morally warped.” Same with slavery, murder, and many others actions which I consider morally wrong.
Also, I haven't equated a moral position with my religion. I've showed how homosexuality is abnormal based on science, never had to go to religion. Unlike you though I’m willing to entertain other points of view. So pick an issue you think we disagree on and show how it is morally ok without simply making it your opinion or the group’s opinion that it is ok. The idea that something is morally right/wrong just because a large number of people agree was shot down centuries ago so please, don’t go there.

Logic is beyond your capability to comprehend...that's quite clear.
Obviously child rape is wrong...what a dumbass analogy. Your morals are skewed by your religion...pure and simple.
I hate calling someone a liar but you have fit the bill today. You have provided no true scientific evidence that being gay is abnormal. I saw 2 religious based sites...which dictate your morals and "science" that have no credibility in the real Scientific Community.
Just because a "large number" of people think it's OK to display their religion in Public places does not make it morally correct. Your religion has been losing court case after court case and will continue to do so with reference to your morals...

[Mr Wiggley]

FLBeaver wrote:

<quoted text>
Then please don't. It would be greatly appreciated.

Can't help myself...nonsense is nonsense...and needs to be exposed.
Stop posting nonsense and I'll stop posting corrections to the nonsense.

[Mr Wiggley]

FLBeaver wrote:

<quoted text>
I'll just address the last point. If homosexual marriage is ok'd then our society has said that morality is defined either by the government or a majority vote.
Moral relativism hurts everyone; the individual and the group.

So just where should our moral compass come from?
The majority vote would be representative of a Democratic Society using the voting system as it was intended. Otherwise we'd be lowered to your hope of being ruled by your religious morals which would not be representative of all people.

[Mr Wiggley]

FLBeaver wrote:

<quoted text>
Since we are in the US that would be Christianity, Judaism, Mormonism and Islam. Hinduism and Buddhism seem to accept homosexuality but they represent less than 2% of the population.

Odd that you proclaim mormonism as an individual religion.
Care to explain?

[Vivek Golikeri]

FLBeaver wrote:

<quoted text>
Since we are in the US that would be Christianity, Judaism, Mormonism and Islam. Hinduism and Buddhism seem to accept homosexuality but they represent less than 2% of the population.

True, but the hold of Christianity on the American mind and the nation's life has been gradually and consistently weakening over the decades. Ever-increasing percentages of Americans profess to no affiliation. It will take time, but the country will eventually be as secular as western Europe.

[vox veritatis]

Vivek Golikeri wrote:

It will take time, but the country will eventually be as secular as western Europe.

You mean the Western Europe that is now becoming increasingly Muslim?
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/2790/europe...

[FLBeaver]

Mr Wiggley wrote:

<quoted text>
Logic is beyond your capability to comprehend...that's quite clear.
Obviously child rape is wrong...what a dumbass analogy. Your morals are skewed by your religion...pure and simple.
I hate calling someone a liar but you have fit the bill today. You have provided no true scientific evidence that being gay is abnormal. I saw 2 religious based sites...which dictate your morals and "science" that have no credibility in the real Scientific Community.
Just because a "large number" of people think it's OK to display their religion in Public places does not make it morally correct. Your religion has been losing court case after court case and will continue to do so with reference to your morals...

Child rape is wrong because....? I keep asking questions and you keep refusing to answer them.

Next point. Ruth Hubbard, a board member of The Council for Responsible Genetics, and the author of Exploding the Gene Myth, says that searching for a gay gene "is not even a worthwhile pursuit...Let me be very clear: I don't think there is any single gene that governs any complex human behavior. There are genetic components in everything we do, and it is foolish to say genes are not involved, but I don't think they are decisive."

If you think homosexuality can be passed down then show us how. Start with a couple of dinosaurs, say Bill and Dave that have the homosexual gene. Now go from them to modern man. Explain how the gene gets passed on and on and on.

Your last point was just rambling. Not sure what it has to do with anything I've posted.