Should same sex marriages be legal?

[Yakuza]

People attributing personal change to God is a far cry from empirical evidence. Have you ever heard the term 'hallucination'? Or 'self-dillusion'? How about 'projection'?

Evidence I have that creationsim is false? Oh, lets see,. DNA,. clear ties between species,. observing mutations and cross pollinations,. dinosaur bones,. the dating of rocks/fossles to way back before the bible said the earth was created,. celestial observations that show how old the universe is,. wow, the list just goes on and on!

So only things that can be quantified and tested in a lab ring true for you?

So you still think that what you have given is 100% proof that the world wasn't created.

 

[Yakuza]

When you were a child you believed with every ounce of your being Santa Clause was real too. Probably spoke to him, saw him on occasion, and his gifts change your life.

Believeing in Santa was completly logical. Yet when the evidence showed that Santa was realy my parents, it would have been unreasonable to keep believeing in santa.

 

[Edge]

You know, I've often considered that analogy myself,. still I never have expressed it directly to someone of faith.

You are very well spoken and unfortunately I am not so this is my way of expressing what you expressed more eloquently

:cheers:

 

[Yakuza]

hey I'm still waiting for your explanation

Jesus is God. He was in the begining. All was created through him including the laws given to Mosses.

Infact the messianc jews call Jesus the living Law.

 

[Edge]

Believeing in Santa was completly logical. Yet when the evidence showed that Santa was realy my parents, it would have been unreasonable to keep believeing in santa.

That is the point... once you were told he was not real and you began to think for yourself and not believe everything your parents told you blindly.. it was no longer logical to believe in Santa.

Survey the information available and educate yourself don't believe because everyone else around you does or out of fear. If you don't don't believe you won't be struck down I mean I am still here after decades of not believing.

Open you eyes.. don't be afraid.

 

[Yakuza]

Open you eyes.. don't be afraid.

I did and had a personel experiance with Jesus Christ.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

No, they dont get to chose to be called civil unions, they are married. Just as people unioned cant chose to be called married.

Maybe you don't understand the problem here:

"Civil Unions" prevent some christians from practicing the Bible's teachings in the way they interpret it.

Straight Christians want their unions to be called marriage. You let them.

Gay christians want their unions to be called marriage. You stop them.

That's not equality. That is one group telling another what to do for no reason.

Discrimination can ONLY be good when the choice is based on proven fact.

What factual reason do you have for letting one group tell the other what to name it's union?

Well dont black people still do it (off topic)? The N****er word was meant as a hateful slang to degrad blacks. Civil unions are in no way meant to degrade gays or their rights.

If blacks want to call themselves something, thats' their choice.

Civil unions might not be meant as degrading, but the fact that the minority is being FORCED to use the word certainly is.

the name, in no way, infringes on their ability to get equal rights.

Wrong. If the american government can rename aspects of a gay's religon, and can't do the same to straight's religion, that's inequality. Plain and simple.

Blacks were forced to use different bathrooms and sit on different areas of buses. Go to different schools. Gays will get all the same rights and privledges. And yes it will be discrimination, but not in any negative fashion.

"Civil unions" allow the government to interfere with one group's religious beliefs and not another's.

No matter how mild the interference, it sets a dangerous precedent. If chrsitanity gets a special favour in this case, what's stopping it from getting more and more? It's a slippery slope, and you're advocating a step towards the edge.

So will be the case with gays. They will be given equal rights. Remind me, did blacks end up being called white, or gray? I cant seem to recall.

That's beside the point because they didn't want to be called white or gray.

The comparison works more like this: if a group of blacks were descended from a tribe called "the whites", would you pass a law that would prevent them from calling themselves "whites"?

No, I am saying that blacks now have equal rights to whites in society, but with marked differences. Examples- blacks arent called white. Blacks keep many of their own traditions and hobbies as do whites.

They can be unioned with equal rights. Blacks still arent white, although they are equal.

No, no, no. At one time, blacks were called "coloreds". They wanted to be called blacks, so people let them. It is the black's choice what to call himself. They chose "black". Now many are choosing "african american". Would you stop them from making that name change?[/B]

The gov't wont hire convicts either. Military universities are just as, if not more, selective then many top rate colleges.

That is discrimination based on proof: If someone has commited a crime, they are more likely to be repeat offenders. Discrimination without proof is called prejudice.

there is a factual difference between people married man to man and man to woman.

Yes, and there is a difference between christian marriage, atheistic marriage and hindu marriage. And between the muslim God and the christian God.

What you are asking here is tantamount to asking one religion to change the name of it's god. Don't you see that?

They still discriminate based on grades.

Colleges differentiate between people with good grades and those with bad.

Military colleges.

Yes, because that is all with a factual basis. Grades are proof that one person can better fit into the scholastic system than another can.

No such factual basis makes gay more controlable than straight. That is the difference.

Obviously we can tell things appart. THAT'S NOT THE POINT.
The point is that when you can't treat one thing better than another for no reason.

Because the sexes involved are different (a pretty major fact).

Just as the religions involved in other marriages are different. Pogrom summed it up perfectly.

1) There goes a white man. There goes a black man.

2) That is a straight marriage. That is a gay marriage.

What you are asking is exactly like preventing blacks from calling themselves "human" They want to be called black humans. Gays want gay marriage.

There is no significant difference there!
This is getting frustrating.

BTW, gay marrage should be outlawed with the punishment of death if broken. It is a disgusting, unnatural practice that would be a burden on society and raise the AIDS rate in this country by who knows how much. It would cost us millions of dollars in health care for same sex couples on the job. It would not be worth the burden on the economy to legalize it. also it is a f*ing disgusting practice that has no place in civilized society.

Yeah, let's kill everyone who can ever get sick, dumbass. Let's kill human beings for no reason whatsoever. Thou shalt not kill. Dumbass.
YOU have no place in civilized society, you borderline nazi.

The bible should be banned

I hope you're joking, because banning the Bible is just as bad as banning gay marriage. In fact, it's equally as bad. You can't ban something just because you want to. Not the Bible, not the practice of marriage, and not the word marriage.

Whethere you believe in the bible or not isn't the issue, and your doctrinal education doesn't make you very eligable to make such comments about what Jesus was unclear about.

The bible is not an issue here because law is secular. Jesus is not an issue here because law is secular.

Had you actualy read the bible you would understand that the perfect standard of God is something unabtainable for us because of the corruption of sin.

God is not an issue here because law is secular. Sin is not an issue here because law is secular.

Every single law must be kept in order to stand justified in Gods eyes. However it was the blood of Jesus that attones for the unrightous and now justifies us before God. The final sacrafice. Does this mean we are free to do whatver we want? No.

Jesus said if you love me, you will keep my commands.
There are no laws that magicaly disappear

Again, God is not an issue here because law is secular. Jesus is not an issue here because law is secular. Righteousness is not an issue here because law is secular. The final sacrafice is not an issue here because law is secular. Magic is not an issue here because law is secular.

You've made a compelling argument for why you aren't gay.
However, you've made a terrible argument for why atheists shouldn't be gay.

If you don't believe in being gay, then don't be gay. Maybe ask your freinds not to be gay.
Just don't pass a law forcing non-christians to follow your own personal opinion.

And yet when the tides of the homosexual communtiy uses political power to control the church, no one cries discimination.

What in hell? No one is forcing the church to do anything here. No one is forcing it to accept gays or to marry them when it doesn't want to.

Well no shit nobody is crying discrimination on the gays. All they are asking for is less discrimination!

Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination"

Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"

Again, the Bible has no place influencing secular law.

But aren't you already violating the laws of Leviticus by not slaughtering every gay you see? After all, "their bloodguiltness is upon them". Eating shrimp is equally an "abomination" under leviticus too. Why don't you kill everyone who ate at Red Lobster?

1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

That just means that those people won't go to heaven. Where does it say that you must pass laws to ban aspects of being effeminate?
If people choose to go to hell, then let them. They aren't christians anyways.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

How [are laws against gays] being bigoted.

This is so obvious that I'm not even going to point it out.

Yeah yeah, i have listened to people for the last twenty something pages, rambling about how the church discriminates, and yet many of you guys have called christians; irrational, zealots, and fools and yet none you you guys either Know any of us personely or understand even the basics of the doctrine you challenge.

I'm not anti-christian. I'm anti-discrimination. I don't enjoy people hurting others, which is reasonable.

We have not called all christians "irrational zealots" and fools.
We are calling irrational zealots fools.

there is a very important difference there. No one hates christianity here. We hate that it is being used as a tool for prejudice.

Christians oppose a homosexual lifestyle just like we would an adulturess one.

Adultery isn't illegal though, because law is secular.

To us its the same as cheating on your wife. Sin is sin. Thats what we believe.

Yes, but it is wrong to make faith-based belief into an actoin agianst those not of your faith, because law is secular.
Just like how you certainly don't want another religion to pass laws agianst you, I'm sure.

We dont love them any less and dont treat them as infierior.

Perhaps you do love them. But can't you see that by trying to "protect" gays from being gay, you are treating them as inferior?

"I am forcing you to do as I say, but you are still my equal."

I know I dont and the church I go to doesn't. Gay people can come to church, shoot the church is made up of sinners, but we take the word of god seriously and the only way to salvation is through repentance, this goes for every sin not just Homosexuality.

A perfect reason for why you shouldn't sin. Because you believe that sin is wrong.

However, gays don't believe that what they are doing is wrong. And there is no physical proof whatsoever that what they are doing is wrong.

therefore, you can't force them to stop. Because the only reason you have s your own faith. You can't force faith onto another person. It doesn't work that way.

Do you know who Jesus is? biblicaly speaking.


John 1


The Word Became Flesh

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.
3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood[1] it.
6There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. 7He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. 8He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. 9The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.[2]
10He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God-- 13children born not of natural descent,[3] nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.
14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[4] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Now that we have established a biblical understanding of the devine position of Jesus what does he say about his own commands.

Matthew 5:19
Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

As long as that quote is, all it proves is that you don't think gays will go to heaven.

Nowere there does it say that laws must be made against gays. nowhere there does it say you must take secular law and make it less secular.

If you were not a sinner to begin with you wouldn't disregard the commandments of God.

God is warning that gays will go to hell, and the gays are ignoring that warning. So what?

Gays going to hell won't hurt you in this world. Gays in hell won't hurt you when you are in heaven.

Why should [the religious argument crumble if christians were no longer the majority] logically?

Because the only reason why christianity will ever be allowed to have influence over secular law is because they are the majority.

Once another religion becomes the majority, christianity will no longer have the power to influence governement through voting strength.

No [christians] cant [be adulterers]. If we are using these terms in context of each other than we agree that homosexuality is a state of being a continuation of sin, either way homosexual or not if you continue to live in sin you can not be a chrisitan. I again ask you to describ the term christian.

What ever happened to repentance? Or those dozen or so christian sects who each interpret the bible differently? There is no single way to follow the rules of the bible, because no-one is godly enough to fully understand it the way god does. All you can do is try your best. And some people try differently.

Chirstian was the term given to us by the romans for those who imitated the likeness of Christ. The bible says we are to be immitaters of God. now how can we call ourself Christian if we are in a continued state of willfull transgression.

Jesus was perfect. I'm pretty sure that God doesn't expect anyone to be as perfect as his son.

All you can do is find the way that you, personally, believe you can do your best for your god. Some people use the bible. Some use the Koran. Until god himself comes down and tells us, we are in no position to say who is more right.

that not what we are talking about, the bible again calls us to be imitaters of God, how can you imatate God if you are willfully breaking one of his commands. If they have a god that says its fine than whatever but we are talking about the christian definition here.

Okay, think of it this way: If we are to be exactly like God, then why are we being commanded? No-one tells God what to do.

No, I dont work on weekends. And No I dont live up to the perfect standard of God.

See what I mean? You think God won't care too much about your working on weekends.

Gays think God won't care too much about them being gay.

You're really not so different.

I am not the one who will judge them. never said I will decide for any one. We all make our own choices.

Yay! Now you get it!
That's the perfect reason to allow gay marriage. It's not our purpose to judge others in faith-based matters.
Let the laws of the nation remain secular, and let God keep order over faith.

 

[Phisionary]

Believeing in Santa was completly logical. Yet when the evidence showed that Santa was realy my parents, it would have been unreasonable to keep believeing in santa.

With that logic one could say that your belief in God is logical only until you learn of gravity and science and evolution and ways to explain that do not involve a higher power.

... I don't know what my point is. Just saying that that logic is pretty slippery...

 

[Edge]

I did and had a personel experiance with Jesus Christ.

Well I am pleased you are content.. good luck with that

 

[f|uke]

So only things that can be quantified and tested in a lab ring true for you?

So you still think that what you have given is 100% proof that the world wasn't created.

Things that can be observed are considered empeirical evidence. Things you feel are true are faith based. Anything inside our minds can be attributed to a myriad of possiblities. Only things in the physical realm that you and I can both see and agree exist, qualify as empirical evidence. By definition.

Do I think its 100% proof the world wasn't created in seven days? No, I don't. It is possible that God created the universe as is, with everything in motion so that it merely appeared to be here for billions of years. Sure, I accept that as a possibility. However, as I see absolutly no evidence in favor of that, I can only see that possibility as being infinatly remote. I would just as soon believe that Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs was a factual account of events.

I have had my own spiritual epiphanys. I have felt forces that some could attribute to 'God'. However, this force did not tell me that he was the Christian God and that I should take the bible as fact. Did yours?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I'll be brief on the Apos-Yakuza debate, because it is somewhat of a tangent.

Yes, you are asserting biblical inerrancy, which is a zealot's position.

Careful there Apos. There's nothing wrong with believing the bible is 100% true. There is, however, something wrong with using that (or any) belief in a way that harms people.

We must oppose the actions, not the belief. Christianity isn't the enemy. It is those who would write discrimination into the constitution.

What we are arguing here is secular law. It is the domain of logic and facts. Logically, a belief cannot harm anyone unless it is acted on.

And what evidence do you have that creationism is false.

We have some evidence, but not enough to make any conclusive proofs. Belief in evolution is a theory based on scientific opinion, just as belief in creationism is a faith based on biblical record.

No one can say for certain who is right, so we must agree to disagree on theoretical faith-based and theoretical matters.

That is why we have a secular law that is based entirely on what is proven, yet still allows for personal beliefs. Keeping laws secular allows creationists and evolutionists to keep their beliefs unhindered. That is why we have to keep law secular by allowing gay marriages.

 

[f|uke]

Ok, Mecha, youre undermining my arguments now.

We can prove evolution just as much as we can prove chemestry, biology, and the function of anatomy. You word it as if theres a 50/50 chance, when ALL empirical evidence points to YES.

Dont steer my tangent. This guy is hard enough to pin down as it is.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Ok, Mecha, youre undermining my arguments now.

We can prove evolution just as much as we can prove chemestry, biology, and the function of anatomy. You word it as if theres a 50/50 chance, when ALL empirical evidence points to YES.

Dont steer my tangent. This guy is hard enough to pin down as it is.

The theory of evolution is not 100% proven. That's why it's called the theory.

There is a shiteload of evidence for it. Enough to convince the vast majority of scientists, and even a signifigant portion of christians. I believe in evolution absolutely.

Still, there are some aspects of evolution that scientists can't explain. Like how it apparently happens much faster than it theorectially should. Until there's enough proof, we can't say that Evolution is 100% true. We don't fully understand it yet.

So, even though there is far more evidence of evolution than there is evidence of God, it is still minutely possible that it is wrong.
In the meantime though, I am convinced that it is right.

 

[seinfeldrules]

1) I'm 28, and still, spiritually mature for my age.
2) I DID say something to Sprata about how I felt he should change his avatar. However instead of shrinking down to his level I tried to appeal to his rationality.
3) You need to look up the definition of 'hypocrite'. I have done nothing of the sort, and yet, you, associating a whole country to nazis just because of one mans opinion isnt very Christainly.
4) You still cannot tell me how your religion holds any ties to my marriage.
5) You are a kid. This isnt an attack,. it just cannot be denied.

1. How about this. You are 28 posting on a game forum, go get a life. If you are going to brush out everyone's opinions on this forum because they are under the age of 21 then good luck. Sorry, but thats brutal reality staring you in the face. I have nothing against most mature people over the age of 21 that post here because they act it.
2. Arent there other meanings to a swastika? You seem bold to jump out and say it. Were you one of the ones who pointed out Christians dont own the word marriage?
3. Remind me, did sprafa take it down after you asked nicely?

 

[seinfeldrules]

How is it bigoted

It discriminates

What an inane statement.

 

[f|uke]

1) I think you'd be surprised how many of us are over 21. I'm not saying your opinions are irrelivant because youre young. There are some intelligent kids out there. You're just not one of them.
2) Sure, but what does that have to do with it? You clearly meant it in an offensive manner as it was retaliation.
3) No, but that is his decision, and I respect his right to freedom of speech. He has, however, taken it down now. I notice yours is still up.

 

[f|uke]

The theory of evolution is not 100% proven. That's why it's called the theory.

Right. Just like the theory of gravity.

 

[seinfeldrules]

"Civil Unions" prevent some christians from practicing the Bible's teachings in the way they interpret it.

How so? I'm pretty sure the bible is pretty strict against gay marriage. I suppose I can still be Christian if I interpret the bible to say murder is good.

Gay christians want their unions to be called marriage. You stop them.

It goes against the meaning of the word that the majority of people in America hold dear.

That's not equality. That is one group telling another what to do for no reason.

It is equality though. They receive the same rights and treatment, just under a different name. Just as blacks receive the same treatment as whites, but arent called white. Can I chose to call myself black just for the hell of it? Nah. How about Hispanic, all those minorities get special treatment, maybe I should change race. The gov't wont let me, is that fair?

Discrimination can ONLY be good when the choice is based on proven fact.

Untrue. Again, colleges discriminate based on grades. Are grades the end all of ones intelligence? Ever seen Good Will Hunting? They arent the end all, but it is the intelligent way to decide who gets in.

What factual reason do you have for letting one group tell the other what to name it's union

What is a factual reason that I shouldnt be allowed to be considered Hispanic? Because someone tells me I'm not? It wouldnt make sense, just as it doesnt make sense for gays to marry.

 

[seinfeldrules]

1) I think you'd be surprised how many of us are over 21. I'm not saying your opinions are irrelivant because youre young. There are some intelligent kids out there. You're just not one of them.
2) Sure, but what does that have to do with it? You clearly meant it in an offensive manner as it was retaliation.
3) No, but that is his decision, and I respect his right to freedom of speech. He has, however, taken it down now. I notice yours is still up.

1. And I'm sure there are plenty of intelligent men out there that browse computer gaming forums, you're just not one. You would fit under the adult still wishing he was 10 category (and acting it).
2. Prove it. If he can post flammatory stuff then so can I.
3. Havent seen it taken down, if I had known then I would have.

 

[Apos]

The theory of evolution is not 100% proven. That's why it's called the theory.

No, that's not why it's called a theory. It's called a theory because that's what scientists call any large cohesive explanatory framework. Evolution is both a historical fact and a scientific theory that explains the diversity of life on this planet. At no point will scientists stop calling evolution a theory, because that's not the meaning of the word "theory" that they are using. The theory of gravity is the same sense of the word. The theory of gravity might be incomplete, wrong, or 100% correct, but at all times it will remain a "theory."

 

[JimmehH]

There are some intelligent kids out there. You're just not one of them.

Good one.

I'm pretty sure the bible is pretty strict against gay marriage.

I don't think there is anything in the Bible that explicitly says gay marriage is bad. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

I suppose I can still be Christian if I interpret the bible to say murder is good.

The old cliché of 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth' rears its head again. Sorta.

 

[seinfeldrules]

I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

Same here. I'm not even that big of a Christian. Go to church once a year.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

No, that's not why it's called a theory. It's called a theory because that's what scientists call any large cohesive explanatory framework. Evolution is both a historical fact and a scientific theory that explains the diversity of life on this planet. At no point will scientists stop calling evolution a theory, because that's not the meaning of the word "theory" that they are using. The theory of gravity is the same sense of the word. The theory of gravity might be incomplete, wrong, or 100% correct, but at all times it will remain a "theory."

Ah, okay.
I'm not exactly an evolutionary scientist, so please bear with me.

My point still stands though. There's nothing wrong with distrusting evolution. Not unless they're hurting someone. If they choose ignorance, so what?

 

[Neutrino]

Ah, okay.
I'm not exactly an evolutionary scientist, so please bear with me.

My point still stands though. There's nothing wrong with distrusting evolution. Not unless they're hurting someone. If they choose ignorance, so what?

Ya Apos explained it pretty well. The thing with evolution is that I don't think any scientist seriously questions the basis of the theory itself. The fact that organisms evolve has been pretty well proven. The only thing in question are some of the details and mechansisms of that theory.

 

[Apos]

Ah, okay.
I'm not exactly an evolutionary scientist, so please bear with me.

Neither am I: it's just that the whole "theory" thing is a very common, and very harmful, confusion.

My point still stands though. There's nothing wrong with distrusting evolution. Not unless they're hurting someone. If they choose ignorance, so what?

I agree with you there.

 

[OCybrManO]

You probably won't catch me doing this very often, but I'll say something in defense of seinfeldrules...

The symbol used in his avatar was not the one used by the Nazi party. His was a clockwise swastika (also called a swavastika/sauvastika/sauwastika)... but it wasn't rotated 45°:

 

[Asus]

Evolution, in it's simplest form, is correct in the sense that things change over time. Many animals within their species can change.
What is still a theory is the idea that one animal came to be from a completely different animal.

If that theory of evolution were true then we would have found hundreds and thousands of fossils showing the inbetween stages. When we find fossils we never find any 'connecting stems' below but always the same fossils or even new animals that we didn't know about.

If you would read up on what is current in science today, their theorys and beliefs, it is actually helping the bibles case and disproving evolution. They are seeing things that were made by intelligent design.
Should read this book. Link
google search


The bible says gays are an abomination in several places...
Such as Leviticus and Romans.

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.''
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.''
"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.''

 

[seinfeldrules]

You probably won't catch me doing this very often, but I'll say something in defense of seinfeldrules...

The symbol used in his avatar was not the one used by the Nazi party. His was a clockwise swastika (also called a swavastika/sauvastika/sauwastika)... but it wasn't rotated 45°:

Ahahaha I love it, seinstika.

 

[Asus]

I just thought I'd bring something else up. In order for an animal to evolve, it's features must be made and grow over this long period of time. Yet if an animal only grew part of this transformation because of it's new environment, wouldn't natural selection remove this animal with these weaker and incomplete parts? Something to think about...

 

[JimmehH]

You're all so single minded
Since when did marriage have to revolve around sex and lust?

I just thought I'd bring something else up. In order for an animal to evolve, it's features must be made and grow over this long period of time. Yet if an animal only grew part of this transformation because of it's new environment, wouldn't natural selection remove this animal with these weaker and incomplete parts? Something to think about...

Not really. It doesn't immediately evolve a complex system. Take the eye. Such a thing could not have evolved at once, nor in parts such as you imply. What use is a retina without a lens to focus it? Or an eyeball with no retina.

What's most likely is that a random mutation caused a patch of light sensitive cells to develop (possibly cells that were already devoted to touch or something, but let's not dwell on minor details).

This seemingly insignificant mutation gave the creature an advantage over the others in its species (predator evasion or catching prey - whatever) so it was more likely to rear offspring and they will probably also have this mutation. Over time these mutations will accumulate and you'll have an eye!

Obviously this takes a long time, but life has been on this planet for a very long time (3 billion years approximately).

 

[CptStern]

You probably won't catch me doing this very often, but I'll say something in defense of seinfeldrules...

The symbol used in his avatar was not the one used by the Nazi party. His was a clockwise swastika (also called a swavastika/sauvastika/sauwastika)... but it wasn't rotated 45°:

yes but crudely drawn avatars aside I dont think seinfeldrules had any other intent but to associate it with nazi germany

 

[Asus]

You're all so single minded
Since when did marriage have to revolve around sex and lust?

Then maybe I should quote the opposite.

"And the LORD God said, 'It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.' Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him. And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. And Adam said: 'This is now bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.' Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed."

 

[Neutrino]

Evolution, in it's simplest form, is correct in the sense that things change over time. Many animals within their species can change.
What is still a theory is the idea that one animal came to be from a completely different animal.

No, the entire thing is a theory. Not just one part. Apos explained this earlier.

If that theory of evolution were true then we would have found hundreds and thousands of fossils showing the inbetween stages. When we find fossils we never find any 'connecting stems' below but always the same fossils or even new animals that we didn't know about.

No, we would not have found "thousands of fossils" showing this. Fossils are quite fragile and do not form all that often at all. To find any such fossils we would be quite lucky.

Oh and the claim that we haven't found any transitional forms in the fossil record is false. There are quite a few examples of these.

If you would read up on what is current in science today, their theorys and beliefs, it is actually helping the bibles case and disproving evolution. They are seeing things that were made by intelligent design.
Should read this book. Link
google search

Disproving evolution? I don't think so. Evolutionary theory is changing all the time, just like many scientific theories. It is not being disproved though.

The bible says gays are an abomination in several places...Such as Leviticus and Romans.

So? That's fine and all and I respect the fact that you believe that. However, other's don't and so shouldn't be forced to conform to the same beliefs and practices.

 

[Asus]

Well, what I said so far was from scientists. If I need to clarify, I ment that the points brought out by this case didn't back evolution up but the other side. There are many theories currently out there.

I'm responding to two conversations here. My quotes are not ment for the same one.

Something else to think about dealing with the big bang theory. Didn't God say "Let there be light"? I'm simply giving something to think about is all.
No one should search for the truth with blinders on by way of past beliefs, assumtions and/or limiting guidelines.

 

[JimmehH]

Why get married at all?

 

[Yakuza]

No, that's not why it's called a theory. It's called a theory because that's what scientists call any large cohesive explanatory framework. Evolution is both a historical fact and a scientific theory that explains the diversity of life on this planet. At no point will scientists stop calling evolution a theory, because that's not the meaning of the word "theory" that they are using. The theory of gravity is the same sense of the word. The theory of gravity might be incomplete, wrong, or 100% correct, but at all times it will remain a "theory."

What are these historical facts, and havent these facts changed over the years?

 

[Yakuza]

This is so obvious that I'm not even going to point it out.

good you have resorted to putting words into my mouth.

I'm not anti-christian. I'm anti-discrimination. I don't enjoy people hurting others, which is reasonable.

We have not called all christians "irrational zealots" and fools.
We are calling irrational zealots fools.

there is a very important difference there. No one hates christianity here. We hate that it is being used as a tool for prejudice.

So christians are not allowed to stand up for what they believe?

Yes, but it is wrong to make faith-based belief into an actoin agianst those not of your faith, because law is secular.
Just like how you certainly don't want another religion to pass laws agianst you, I'm sure.


Perhaps you do love them. But can't you see that by trying to "protect" gays from being gay, you are treating them as inferior?

"I am forcing you to do as I say, but you are still my equal."

Who ever said i was trying to protect gays from being gay?

A perfect reason for why you shouldn't sin. Because you believe that sin is wrong.

However, gays don't believe that what they are doing is wrong. And there is no physical proof whatsoever that what they are doing is wrong.

therefore, you can't force them to stop. Because the only reason you have s your own faith. You can't force faith onto another person. It doesn't work that way.

Gays can believe what ever they want.

As long as that quote is, all it proves is that you don't think gays will go to heaven.

Nowere there does it say that laws must be made against gays. nowhere there does it say you must take secular law and make it less secular.

This is the biggest problem. You keep confusing the genral word Law with the Law of God. The Law of God clearly states that homosexuality is wrong and is a sin.

You ask me questions regarding the law of God, then say the law is secular.

God is warning that gays will go to hell, and the gays are ignoring that warning. So what?

Gays going to hell won't hurt you in this world. Gays in hell won't hurt you when you are in heaven.

Like I said I wont be the one judging them. And I have stated that homosexuality is the problem, not being gay in general. There are Christians who one practiced homosexuality but do not any more because they believe n what God says and repented of their sin. However this doesn't mean that they still dont get feelings for other guys or that their non-homosexual lifestyle is easy.

Because the only reason why christianity will ever be allowed to have influence over secular law is because they are the majority.

Once another religion becomes the majority, christianity will no longer have the power to influence governement through voting strength.

True.

What ever happened to repentance? Or those dozen or so christian sects who each interpret the bible differently? There is no single way to follow the rules of the bible, because no-one is godly enough to fully understand it the way god does. All you can do is try your best. And some people try differently.


Jesus was perfect. I'm pretty sure that God doesn't expect anyone to be as perfect as his son.

All you can do is find the way that you, personally, believe you can do your best for your god. Some people use the bible. Some use the Koran. Until god himself comes down and tells us, we are in no position to say who is more right.

Jesus said I am the way the truth and the life and no one gets to the father except through me.

Okay, think of it this way: If we are to be exactly like God, then why are we being commanded? No-one tells God what to do.

See what I mean? You think God won't care too much about your working on weekends.

Gays think God won't care too much about them being gay.

You're really not so different.

We cant be exactly like God, hence the purpose of Jesus. God does care about the Law, so much in fact that he had his son Die on the cross for it.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

good you have resorted to putting words into my mouth.

I was giving the quote context. That's why my addition was enclosed in the [] brackets.

So christians are not allowed to stand up for what they believe?

Banning gay marriage isn't "standing up for what you believe". It's "forcing other people to stand up for what you believe".

You must understand that difference.

Who ever said i was trying to protect gays from being gay?

You continue to put forward your position that gay marriage should be banned, and yet still said:
"We dont love them any less and dont treat them as infierior."

I said that banning gay marriage is treating gays as inferior. Since you are treating them as inferior, yet still "love" them, then I assume you are removing their rights as a way to show them the 'error' of their ways and send them to heaven, correct?

If you're not banning marriage for the gays, could it be that you are banning it for selfish reasons?

Gays can believe what ever they want.

Yes, exactly.

This is the biggest problem. You keep confusing the genral word Law with the Law of God. The Law of God clearly states that homosexuality is wrong and is a sin.

What? I'm not confusing anything.
Here's what I said:

Nowere there does it say [in the bible] that laws must be made against gays. nowhere there does it say you must take secular law and make it less secular.

Don't you see the point? God has never said anywhere that you must make changes to the laws of atheists. And yet that is what you are attempting to do.

It's called christian law because it only applies to christians.

You are saying that the secular law must be changed to discriminate against gays, because the Bible says so.
I am saying that secular law must remain seperate from religious law.

I'm not confusing the two. If anything, ban supporters like you are, by trying to make a religious teaching into a secular law.

You ask me questions regarding the law of God, then say the law is secular.

I'm sorry that I brought up points on Leviticus. I was trying to show you how the concept of "biblical interpretation" works, by showing that not everyone follows the bible's teachings the same way.

And, since it is impossible to make everyone believe in the bible the same way, we must have a seperate set of laws that apply to everyone: Secular law.

I'm sorry if I confused anyone. But my point is still that secular law is secular for a reason, and a gay marriage ban ruins that.

Like I said I wont be the one judging them.

But by Banning marriage, you are judging them. You are judging them to be unworthy of marriage.

Jesus said I am the way the truth and the life and no one gets to the father except through me.

You're going to have to dumb it down for me, as I have only a passing knowledge of Christianity.
How does this answer my point that "until god himself comes down and tells us, we are in no position to say which religion is more right"?

We cant be exactly like God, hence the purpose of Jesus. God does care about the Law, so much in fact that he had his son Die on the cross for it.

Yes, but that is biblical law, not secular law. Since a vast amount of people do not believe that jesus has any authority, we have the american judicial system. That system is secular.

I'm going to be blunt here: I don't care what Jesus said. You still have not put forward any reason why christian law should have sway over secular law.

 

[Apos]

Evolution, in it's simplest form, is correct in the sense that things change over time. Many animals within their species can change.
What is still a theory is the idea that one animal came to be from a completely different animal.

First of all, you are again misusing the word "theory" to imply "conjecture/hypothesis." That's just not what it means in science.

Second of all, one of the great insights of evolutionary biology is that there IS no discrete "one animal" and "another animal": that is, the concept of species is a largely arbitrary one: there are in fact no hard and fast lines. We have become accustomed to thinking of animals in terms of particular "kinds," but this assumption turns out to be a gross simplification of what's actually going on in the animal kingdom.

Put simply, there is no way to argue that there can be evolution within a species, but not from species TO species. Small changes eventually add up to big ones. There's no real way around this, other than simply being in denial.

If that theory of evolution were true then we would have found hundreds and thousands of fossils showing the inbetween stages. When we find fossils we never find any 'connecting stems' below but always the same fossils or even new animals that we didn't know about.

What are you, a Kent Hovind disciple? Of course we've found countless transitory fossils.

If you would read up on what is current in science today, their theorys and beliefs, it is actually helping the bibles case and disproving evolution. They are seeing things that were made by intelligent design.

Laughable. Show me a single article in a reputable scientific journal that suggests anything of the sort.

The ID movement has taken place almost entirely in popular books, not in actual scientific research. Heck, ID proponents haven't even been able to suggest what research their claims should involve, much less establish any of them. The sites you quote are fringe groups. They've spent a lot of money trying to promote their wacko views directly to the public, but there's no credible scientific support for any of it.