Same sex marriages. Do you agree?

[CptStern]

Damn, this threads still lingering on! LOL – ya I know I said I’d stay outa this debate but:

- doesn’t exist – there will always be inaccuracies and human errors, take carbon dating for example – seen a programme of Discovery Science that researchers accidentally said that a dead cow was over 100 years old. Can’t remember the programme though – so I’ll get flamed for that point… but anyways – destroy this thread! It’s only doing more harm than good! :bounce:

carbon dating is not entirely accurate...but 100 years is nothing when talking about millions of years

oh and maybe you should just leave this thread. ..you're the only one who seems to have a problem with it

 

[SillyBilly]

The point I was trying to make is that a cow only lives, what, 10 years - not 100 - that means these guys where x10 out.

And hey – share the love man – don’t get too uptight :cheers: Just think that everyone’s repeating themselves – hell I know I am – LOL, so I’ll quietly leave, enjoy! :bounce:

 

[CptStern]

The point I was trying to make is that a cow only lives, what, 10 years - not 100 - that means these guys where x10 out.

I dont think you know what carbon dating is

the scientists werent saying the cow lived for 100 yrs (who in their right mind would say that?) ...just that it was dead for 100 years ...but give me a link so I can look at it myself so I can be sure they said what they said

 

[SillyBilly]

'twas a freshly dead cow - they where trying 2 find its age using a variety of different methods - as I said twasn't a good example as I can't remember the name of the programme, but anyways... that door... :imu:

 

[CptStern]

here sillybilly something for you to read

 

[SillyBilly]

urgh - the door, the door damn it! man, go onto Goggle and you can find hundreds of sites for or indeed against dating methods! just like you have done - as it happens so have I: click here - site lists a number of dating methods and highlights their flaws.
Now this has got very little to do with gay marriages hasn't it? Perhaps you should stick to the topic mate – you could go and get a lot of people angry.

Anyway – byes!

 

[CptStern]

urgh - the door, the door damn it! man, go onto Goggle and you can find hundreds of sites for or indeed against dating methods! just like you have done - as it happens so have I: click here - site lists a number of dating methods and highlights their flaws.

it's a christian answers web site...I dont expect a non biased account...at least the link I provided was written by someone with a phd in science

Now this has got very little to do with gay marriages hasn't it? Perhaps you should stick to the topic mate – you could go and get a lot of people angry.

Anyway – byes!

considering I started the thread I dont think people will care too much

 

[Yakuza]

an example of good parenting :upstare: I witnessed today


I was waiting at the bus station this morning when a bus pulled up next to where the bus I take loads passengers. The bus driver came out with a 3 year old in his arms and a 6 year old following closely behind. He walked up to a woman who was with 2 other kids listening to her walkman. Apparently the 2 kids had wandered off and boarded a bus heading in the opposite direction. The bus driver said something to her, she glowered at her two missing kids and put her headphones back on as if nothing had happened. It didnt even seem to phase her that her 2 young kids almost got lost. Now if this sorry excuse of a parent can have kids why shouldnt gay people be allowed to have them? They couldnt be any worse at parenting than this woman.

Because study after study has proven, that children who grow up in a mommy AND daddy household are a lot higher statisticaly to lead better and more productive lives.

 

[SillyBilly]

CptStern, that’s the most pathetic reply ever mate lol – my Physics teacher has a phd in science (doing Physics for A level) and she’s a Christian – lol. Look and you'll find non-Christian sites highlighting the flaws too (and I assume the author knew what they where talking about on the other site I linked you to btw ).

considering I started the thread I dont think people will care too much

lmao - all hail you mate – goodbye.

 

[CptStern]

my Physics teacher has a phd in science (doing Physics for A level) and she’s a Christian

I know a lot of christians who dont believe in creationism; I dont see the point.
But as you stated before it's off topic and I really dont want to get into a creationism vs evolution debate with you.

 

[Shuzer]

I know a lot of christians who dont believe in creationism; I dont see the point.
But as you stated before it's off topic and I really dont want to get into a creationism vs evolution with you.

Erm.. randomly commenting here, people who claim to be Christians who are reject parts of The Bible aren't Christians.. there are SO many people who claim to be Christians just because it makes them look like a "good person."

/me exits the thread

 

[CptStern]

ah come on, tell that to my aunt, or to a freind of mine. What does loving jesus have to do with a book written by man?




I cant believe I said love and jesus in the same sentence ...I gotta get outta these religious debates before I get the urge to pray

 

[Javert]

Because study after study has proven, that children who grow up in a mommy AND daddy household are a lot higher statisticaly to lead better and more productive lives.

Source+link? mmmk.

You do realize that in 40 years, gay marriages will be completely acceptable with historians questiong why we were so ignorant. Remember when bi-racial or bi-religious marriage were a no-no with fundamentalists citing tradition, the Bible, religion, blah blah blah? Well, now it isn't. Society constantly improves itself to be generally more tolerant towards differences. And that's a good thing. And marriage does not automatically begets children, so forget using that argument.

Relax folks, a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages won't happen. And if it does now, it will be repealed in 8 years for its failure and embarrassment towards Democracy and American values of tolerance and diversity.

 

[craig]

Source+link? mmmk.

Remember when bi-racial or bi-religious marriage were a no-no with fundamentalists citing tradition, the Bible, religion, blah blah blah? Well, now it isn't. Society constantly improves itself to be generally more tolerant towards differences. And that's a good thing.

Um.. the whole gay marriage issue aside, you're talking complete shit. Society is more corrupt now that it's ever been for the simple fact that more and more things are becoming more acceptable.

Saying society 'improves' it's self is a matter of opinion. Theres so much crime, so many un-wanted children, so much un-employment... (and the lists goes on) that its untrue.

Remember Kevin Spacey's charachter in Se7en? He may have been a raving lunatic, but the guy had a point.. we live in complete and utter sin every single day of our lives and we dont even see it for the simple fact that as time goes on we as a society become more corrupt and things become 'acceptable'.

Pssh. In general humans need to be told what they can and cannot do (hence govornment) or they just think they can get away with anything.

 

[Stigmata]

Um.. the whole gay marriage issue aside, you're talking complete shit. Society is more corrupt now that it's ever been for the simple fact that more and more things are becoming more acceptable.

Saying society 'improves' it's self is a matter of opinion. Theres so much crime, so many un-wanted children, so much un-employment... (and the lists goes on) that its untrue.

Remember Kevin Spacey's charachter in Se7en? He may have been a raving lunatic, but the guy had a point.. we live in complete and utter sin every single day of our lives and we dont even see it for the simple fact that as time goes on we as a society become more corrupt and things become 'acceptable'.

Pssh. In general humans need to be told what they can and cannot do (hence govornment) or they just think they can get away with anything.

Sooo........ What's your point exactly? We all know that people get away with anything when there's no government. We know how much crime there is, and how many unwanted children and unemployed people there are. THAT probably hasn't changed much in the past couple thousand years. But what does any of that have to do with society not being able to improve itself?

As Javert said (and I agree 100% with what he said), society improves itself over time. HOWEVER, sometimes it does not improve in all aspects. You can see that the need for people to attack and kill each other has not changed (African clan and civil wars and the Iraq war for example), while other aspects such as the acceptance of inter-racial marriages and people of other religions has improved a great deal in the past century. There's no reason this trend should not continue, hopefully to an end where everyone, regardless of origins, color or beliefs is accepted by everyone else everywhere.

 

[Javert]

Um.. the whole gay marriage issue aside, you're talking complete shit. Society is more corrupt now that it's ever been for the simple fact that more and more things are becoming more acceptable.

Saying society 'improves' it's self is a matter of opinion. Theres so much crime, so many un-wanted children, so much un-employment... (and the lists goes on) that its untrue.

Remember Kevin Spacey's charachter in Se7en? He may have been a raving lunatic, but the guy had a point.. we live in complete and utter sin every single day of our lives and we dont even see it for the simple fact that as time goes on we as a society become more corrupt and things become 'acceptable'.

Pssh. In general humans need to be told what they can and cannot do (hence govornment) or they just think they can get away with anything.

I'm basing my argument on history (Civil Rights Movement, failure of Prohibition) and a base faith in humanism. You're basing your argument on a fictional movie and normative pessimism. GG, try again.

 

[Vigilante]

cpt stern..i'm not getting into any political discussion with you because your views tend to piss me off =). But if they want to marry, let them..not my problem.

 

[SFLUFAN]

As a practicing Roman Catholic, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of homosexual marriage but I will not stand in their way to have civil ceremonies if the law allows for it.

And as a "true" Republican, no way in hell should the Constitution be amended to address this issue - this is a states' rights issue and the Federal government has no business meddling in it.

 

[MrWhite]

As a practicing Roman Catholic, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of homosexual marriage but I will not stand in their way to have civil ceremonies if the law allows for it.

And as a "true" Republican, no way in hell should the Constitution be amended to address this issue - this is a states' rights issue and the Federal government has no business meddling in it.

That's all that's asked

and the amendment failed anyways

 

[CptStern]

cpt stern..i'm not getting into any political discussion with you because your views tend to piss me off =). But if they want to marry, let them..not my problem.

not that I know who you are ...and not that it matters to me if my views piss you off or not but hey you're ok if they get married, so 1 out of 3 isnt great but what am I to do












vote for the other guy in 04! vive le resistance, down with government, yadda yadda blah blah

 

[Yakuza]

Source+link? mmmk.

You do realize that in 40 years, gay marriages will be completely acceptable with historians questiong why we were so ignorant. Remember when bi-racial or bi-religious marriage were a no-no with fundamentalists citing tradition, the Bible, religion, blah blah blah? Well, now it isn't. Society constantly improves itself to be generally more tolerant towards differences. And that's a good thing. And marriage does not automatically begets children, so forget using that argument.

Relax folks, a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages won't happen. And if it does now, it will be repealed in 8 years for its failure and embarrassment towards Democracy and American values of tolerance and diversity.

Here is one link. I can give you a bit more if you like.
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/apr/040428c.html

 

[CptStern]

Here is one link. I can give you a bit more if you like.
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/apr/040428c.html

ummm I'm always a little sceptical of news sources that have an agenda to promote:

from their about us page

"Campaign Life Coalition, founded in 1978, has been one of the first pro-life organizations to emphasize the international dimension of attacks on life and family. Along with a few other groups it pioneered pro-life lobbying at United Nations conferences. CLC president, Jim Hughes, is currently also vice-president of the International Right to Life Federation. "



.

 

[Javert]

The Canadian Psychological Association has ceased to be a scientific organization and instead, has become a political organization promoting politically correct thought.

That was the first sentence, so you can imagine my concern. Then I read the article. Then I read their sources. I must agree with Cpt Stern, it's less of a scientific analysis and more like a political rant backed by statistics (which, can prove everything and nothing). Keep trying though, I like effort. You said you had several, give me the best one, and waste less of both our times.

 

[Yakuza]

That was the first sentence, so you can imagine my concern. Then I read the article. Then I read their sources. I must agree with Cpt Stern, it's less of a scientific analysis and more like a political rant backed by statistics (which, can prove everything and nothing). Keep trying though, I like effort. You said you had several, give me the best one, and waste less of both our times.

What would you consider the "Best one".

 

[Neutrino]

On the issue of the gay marriage ban, it makes me sick. I understand that some people are uncomfortable with the thought of gay marriage or gays in general, and I can respect their right to that opinion. However, the government has no right to even consider such an amendment in my opinion. To me it's almost a blatently illegal mixing of chuch and state. As far as the government is concerned a marriage should only be legal contract between two people and it should be left up to the states to define that contract. But in order for there to be any justification for this ammendment the government has to define marriage as something else, specifically a religious ceremony. And they have no right to do that or make laws based on such religious beliefs.

What if I decided to make my own religion and say that I don't really like people who are taller than six feet and therefore they should not be allowed to marry? I see practically no difference between this obviously ridiculous example and what is happening now.

Yay, for one of the only presidents who is actually trying to bring back bigotry and prejudice. Go Bush. :x

 

[manny_c44]

Basically people are fighting over the name. "Marriage" vs the current "Civil Union". I don't get it, if they've got the union then thats it right? You can still have a big celebration, wear rings, adopt kids and do all of the other stuff, where's the problem? Go crazy.

It seems to me the gay community is just stirring the shit to draw attention to themselves. We know you're proud to be gay, and no one gives a damn, now stop heckling the world.

 

[MrWhite]

Basically people are fighting over the name. "Marriage" vs the current "Civil Union". I don't get it, if they've got the union then thats it right? You can still have a big celebration, wear rings, adopt kids and do all of the other stuff, where's the problem? Go crazy.

It seems to me the gay community is just stirring the shit to draw attention to themselves. We know you're proud to be gay, and no one gives a damn, now stop heckling the world.

Ironically, you're right about one thing... some people are a bit too eager to show off thier pride. Yes I'm proud but I don't show it off every chance I have.

But no, this isnt about the civil unions... the civil unions are only allowed in a few states and canada... and then they tried to attack even that with the ban all together.

 

[Javert]

What would you consider the "Best one".

It's your choice, the burden of support is on you. But perhaps a study by an acknowledged association of actual scientists perhaps. News sources and scientific journals are always a plus. I look highly on corporate or university research too. But if you can't find any, that's ok.

 

[CptStern]

Basically people are fighting over the name. "Marriage" vs the current "Civil Union". I don't get it, if they've got the union then thats it right? You can still have a big celebration, wear rings, adopt kids and do all of the other stuff, where's the problem? Go crazy.

It seems to me the gay community is just stirring the shit to draw attention to themselves. We know you're proud to be gay, and no one gives a damn, now stop heckling the world.

seems to me this was tried in the US in the 50's when they had "coloured only" schools (etc) and "whites only" schools (etc)

it's exclusionary

 

[StevenlAFl]

It's hard to refrain from gay bashing. I will just say I hope they live a long and miserable life.

 

[CptStern]

I'll chock that up to ignorance, bigotry and stupidity but hey you're entitled to your moronic opinion

 

[Neutrino]

I'll chock that up to ignorance, bigotry and stupidity but hey you're entitled to your moronic opinion

Seconded........

 

[SidewinderX]

and the amendment failed anyways

No, it only failed to be moved. IE, they're not voting on it right now, they're still debating.

CptStern: Regardless of what you say, the word marriage is intrinsicly religious. That's why I feel that it's up the the various religions to decide what they hell the allow and not in thier marriage.


Civil Unions, however, should be legal for any two people who mutally agree to it. They should have every single right that a hetrosexual couple has, bar-none. They should be allowed to be next-of-kin. They should be allowed to sign onto bank accounts, etc. There is no logical reason why they shouldn't be able to do it.

If they want to be married married, they should finbd a religion that accepts that (Unitarian Universalists is an example) I think the Catholic Church has the right to say "we don't want gay people married in our church." They're a private instituation, and they can do that.

But the government, on any level, doesn't have the right to ban unions between people.

 

[CptStern]

CptStern: Regardless of what you say, the word marriage is intrinsicly religious. That's why I feel that it's up the the various religions to decide what they hell the allow and not in thier marriage.
.

no, that's not true. If I go to city hall to get married it's called "marriage" not civil union. If what you say is true than I might as well get re-married because I was married in a non-denominational ceremony

oh and the United church of canada (a christian religion) allows gay marriages ...so they decided it was ok for gay couples to be married so obviously it isnt about what the bible says it's personal choice. BTW to all the christians out there who are opposed to this ...why do you care? I mean it's not like they will affect your lives in any way

 

[Brian Damage]

The word "Marriage" is intrinsically religious?

Woah, that turns the old phrase "A marriage of Science and Technology" into a bit of a mindbender. Where did two such noncorporeal conceptual entities find someone to perform the ceremony? Las Vegas?

:E

 

[SidewinderX]

Well, obviously, like anything, it's not only used in that sense.

But marriage was originally a religious thing. I mean, yeah you can called it marrige, yeah people call it marige, but if you go down to city hall, you're getting a civil union. marrige is just a way to describe it in general.

 

[CptStern]

when I applied for my licence it said "marriage licence" not civil union licence

 

[Brian Damage]

Now I can't stop wondering what would have gone on during the honeymoon...

 

[CptStern]

we had a "civil union"

 

[Brian Damage]

No, I meant on Science and Technology's honeymoon...