A Europeans point of view.

o well, the bible has become more of a guideline for christians anyway. in my opinion all a good christian needs to do is study the gospels, really nothing else matters. The old testament is ****ed up and fiction, or if considered non fiction, it was based on something.

and yes for you zealouts (sp?) the story of noah and the ark was based off of a greek (i believe) legend. the epic of gilgamesh i think .

o well.

as for the main point of the thread, what many people don't realize about the laws against homosexual marriage, is that the gov't is mainly just worried about tax problems. :) - only religious idiots like Bush are actually against the concept enough to ban the marriage. for another, religion changes, no matter. if people are against gay marriage, why don't they simply become amish, and follow the bible exactly. as for abortion, its terrible to not let women choose if its before the period of time to when the baby is considered human. Just like gay marriages, abortions will happen no matter what, the gov't might as well save women that will eventually do it themselves by allowing them to go to a hospital and have it properly done. For another, young teenage girls that are told "i love you" by some older idiot guy should not be held responsible enough to have to care for their accident for the rest of their lives. they simply aren't mature enough to say no, in a lot of cases.

The problem with young girls getting pregant is either what i said above, or rape. The parents are to blame for young girls getting pregnant anyway. now say 16+ on average, i would assume it to be their responsibilty, and their's entirely. but 13-15 year old girls being tricked by some 16 year old guy wanted sex... with the whole i love you ****.. not cool. but its going to happen.

its better for the world to allow abortion. as jp said, "back alleys and coat hangers" - that is by far worse than a hospital with doctors knowing what they are doing.

for those of you who say "Don't have sex if you don't want to get pregnant and have to be responsible.." - wake up and welcome to the new millenium, the new generations. as we as a world grow, and get older - we become more liberal about our morals. sex is becoming more acceptable, and protection is getting better. in my opinion there is no reason not to have sex if you are careful about it, ie protection, birth control is nice... pulling out.. etc. sex is a wonderful thing, and it doesn't make a **** of difference who its with as long as you are safe.

Do people actually still believe there is some sort of magical bond that exists between a virgin husband and a virgin wife? no that just means they never experienced a damn thing before they got married. Marriage isn't as sacred as it used to be. a few years ago i heard that over 70% of marriages now a days end in divorce.. hrm.. as opposed to virtually zero a few hundred years ago. But the amount of people unhappy was the same. Abortion is just like divorce, divorce used to be hella illegal, and now look how acceptable it has become to people other than catholics and various sects of christianity, islam, etc.. considering that a good percentage of the world is now atheist anyway.

My view on religion and living your life by it:

1. people are scared of what happens to them when they die, or simply anxious, curious - religion comes in
2. people can't explain **** because we just haven't figured it out yet - religion
3. controlling nations by religion was a great way to keep people in line, and for progression, look at the egyptians, greeks , etc.

As far back as the world begun, people began inventing religion. Their beliefs changed as they evolved, and hundreds of different religions have cycled around the world forever. everyone thinks their religion is right. of course it is, otherwise it wouldn't be their religion now would it?

the muslim religion is growing. it is projected in 2025 that there will be 5% more muslims in the world than christians, whereas right now theres a few more christians. along with reincarnationists, atheists, agnostics, anti-religious people, etc.

so who cares? why don't people as a collective say hey.. we as a world society need to determine which morals fit our society best, and abide by them as best we can, and not try to pick and choose out of some bible. Cause heh, lets face it - 99% (not an actual percent) of the people who claim to be religious are only believers in what they want to out of the bible, its out dated. like i said, the bible is a guideline, not written rule. (except of course for the 10 commandments, but those don't matter anymore anyway - new testament.)

Why don't we all just say hey, there is some sort of higher being(s) out there, we need to be good people and love and embrace each for who each other are, instead of "Im christian ill kill you because you're a muslim, or vice-versa."

its ****ing ridiculous, why NOT believe in a higher being if we can't prove anything yet? we might as well, until we can come up with some proof.. but hell, we don't even know what gravity is yet.. remember folks its a theory. No one can explain a damned thing for sure about physics, therefore there must be some explanation awaiting humankind, how about a god(s)? Why not?

Bush needs to get off his ****ing jesus high horse and do whats best for the United States for the people of the United States, not whats best for the christians of the United States. JP - i agree with you on bush surrounding himself with religious idiots, although i do believe nero was the antichrist, and not cheney.. heh - read up on nero and facts about when the antichrist was supposed to have came around.. it was right when nero showed up.

Quote:

---

Oh God said to Abraham, "Kill me a son"
Abe says, "Man, you must be puttin' me on"
God say, "No." Abe say, "What?"
God say, "You can do what you want Abe, but
The next time you see me comin' you better run"

---

Dylan
:cool:

gay marriage is fine (I am not gay). If you love someone whether it be male or female why can't you spend the rest of your life with them? if you love someone and want to marry them.. then it should be up to the individual. Noone has the right to say who someone can and can't love nor do they have the right to say who they can or can't marry ..

Why should anyone be able to stop someone else from being happy. If gay people wanna marry it is not hurting anyone.

Quote:

---

JP - i agree with you

---

Ok, his second post (closed thread) took these words to a new level scatty, vacuous, fatuous, whim, farce, tiff, imprudent, dopey ,hippie, inane and cockamamy!

Quote:

---

we don't even know what gravity is yet.

---

Which gravity?
In chemistry, gravity is the density of a fluid, particularly a fuel. It is expressed in degrees, with lower numbers indicating heavier liquids and higher numbers indicating lighter liquids. ;)

The problem with marriage is it is a religious institution and as such the rules should be decided by the religion concerned. If the religion under which you want to get married demands that you sacrafice a chicken before the ceremony then at the very worst you had better stop off at kentucky fired chicken on the way and buy a box of drumsticks. If you have problems with the rules then get married somewhere that suits your beliefs.
In most cases the gay couples that want to get married want it for administrative reasons ; tax, inheratiance,ect. Then it should be a civil wedding , it becomes a question of law and not faith. Is there anything in your consitution that forbids such a union and if there is, is it legal. I can understand gay couples who are committed to spending the rest of their lives together wanting the same civil and fiscal rights as hetro couples.
Just as an example here in france there are three forms of union.
1) religious marriage.
2) state or civil marriage
3) A civil contract or union or "PACS". like a prenuptual agreement without the nuptual part.

The first two are reserved for hetro couples and it should be notes that the state does not reconise the religious ceremonyand vice versa. To get married you are obliged to have the civil wedding with the religious cermony optional.
The PAcs was voted in originaly for gay couples or to be politicaly correct same sex couples ( I wonder does that mean they never change position joke :) ). It gives the same advantages and disadvantages that hetro couples get when they marry. It workes fairly well so well in fact that it is now used by hetro couples that do not want the symbolisim of marriage.

Since the separation The State from the Church about 200 years ago (most of ppl here live on those countries), i dont think we should mix "religion" with "civil rights".

Civil Rights must be equal for ALL people

Religion is a personal choice and should be treated like that.

So marriage = civil union
we need to stay on this subject. Why not people from same sex can get this?

If 2 women (no one remember about females couples?) want to live together the rest of their lives, why they cant get a "civil union"? to get the same CIVIL rights, etc, etc

No one wants to impose to any church to accept 2 brides on a "religious" marriage. Each Church will choose its way. period.

But allow Church interfere on the State, welll, are we going back do 18th century?

Once again this is not a Civil Rights issue. This is a moral acceptance issue.

No one is stopping gay people from marrying persons of the opposite sex. Under the law, marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. The law could care less about an individual's sexual preference. Thus under the law, people of the same sex are not elligible to marry each other. Thus under the law, people are not eligible to marry minors. Thus under the law, people are not eligible to marry animals. Thus under the law, people cannot marry their refrigerator. Thus under the law, people cannot marry dead Presidents or Rock stars (Elvis being the exception) :D

The entire concept of "whatever keeps me from being happy is a result of "The Man" violatiing my civil rights" is a crock of Bull. I won't be happy until drug use is legalized, "The Man" is violating my civil rights. I won't be happy until I have free health care, "The Man" is violating my civil rights. I won't be happy until I can shove a cactus up the arse of every gymnast that participated in the Olympics, "The Man" is violating my civil rights. You have the right to the pursuit of happiness within the laws established by Congress, not your every whim.

Face it. - Unless homosexuality becomes an acceptable norm in society, gays might as well get used to sex changes being the solution to achieve their "Equal Rights" concerns.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by !mitationRust
Ok, his second post (closed thread) took these words to a new level scatty, vacuous, fatuous, whim, farce, tiff, imprudent, dopey ,hippie, inane and cockamamy!


Which gravity?
In chemistry, gravity is the density of a fluid, particularly a fuel. It is expressed in degrees, with lower numbers indicating heavier liquids and higher numbers indicating lighter liquids. ;)

---

for the first thing, don't misquote me

secondly, i was discussing the theory of gravity, you know - The natural force of attraction exerted by a celestial body, such as Earth, upon objects at or near its surface, tending to draw them toward the center of the body. - taken from www.dictionary.com/search?q=gravity definition #1

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by OverdueSpy
Once again this is not a Civil Rights issue. This is a moral acceptance issue.

No one is stopping gay people from marrying persons of the opposite sex. Under the law, marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. The law could care less about an individual's sexual preference. Thus under the law, people of the same sex are not elligible to marry each other. Thus under the law, people are not eligible to marry minors. Thus under the law, people are not eligible to marry animals. Thus under the law, people cannot marry their refrigerator. Thus under the law, people cannot marry dead Presidents or Rock stars (Elvis being the exception) :D

The entire concept of "whatever keeps me from being happy is a result of "The Man" violatiing my civil rights" is a crock of Bull. I won't be happy until drug use is legalized, "The Man" is violating my civil rights. I won't be happy until I have free health care, "The Man" is violating my civil rights. I won't be happy until I can shove a cactus up the arse of every gymnast that participated in the Olympics, "The Man" is violating my civil rights. You have the right to the pursuit of happiness within the laws established by Congress, not your every whim.

Face it. - Unless homosexuality becomes an acceptable norm in society, gays might as well get used to sex changes being the solution to achieve their "Equal Rights" concerns.

---

eh hem.. ever hear of ammendments? laws change, and gay marriage is not the ****ing same thing as marrying a 2 year old. don't demean homosexual people like that, nor dehumanize them by comparing gay marriages to marrying an object, wtf is wrong with you? wake up and smell the evolution.

for another, its just our society that is against gays, period. remember the greeks - they thought a relationship between an older male and a younger male (like 20 years old and 40 or so) was a good thing. Who gives a **** if gay people want to get married? does it really bother you that much? Wtf is your problem man, grow up. its called "Excepting people for who they are." not for who you want them to be. And if its not a civil right, it damn sure should be. change the tax laws or whatever before you condemn human rights.

Quote:

---

wake up and smell the evolution.

---

Hmm...if our evolution is headed towards homosexualism...I see the human kind doomed to the lack of reproductivity...until homosexual men develop a womb :shocked: :D

Quote:

---

for another, its just our society that is against gays, period.

---

No, not really. Communism doesn't look at gays too favorably. Many European countires are not too fond of homosexualism neither. Some are much more liberal, open minded, and many are not....its just life.

[QUOTE Hmm...if our evolution is headed towards homosexualism...I see the human kind doomed to the lack of reproductivity...until homosexual men develop a womb[/QUOTE]

You can see this "homosexual" behavior on several animals. So "homosexualism" wont destroy the human race. Due to statistics (and gens supremacy), most will follow the man-female strategy.

I have 2 female dogs that insist in f....(try at least) each other. So this will end canine race?

bah, just because you dont like it doesnt mean that other can like... its a kind of preference...

those argumentation is the same on 18th-19th century when goverment and Church considered black and indian people as "non-human" and they couldnt have rights.

Everytime that someone talk about gay people they allways explain thru "stereotypes" (its that right in English - couldnt find in dictionary :P )


p.s. i couldnt find a word to female dog too. is it "bitch"?