Gay Marriage -- For Or Against?

[Adornado]

What is your stance on gay marriage? Are you for it, against or don't really care?

Personally, I don't care and I don't agree with the politicians who say it will ruin the sanctuary of marriage...it's already ruined people! Divorce rates are higher then ever and then you have people like Jennifer Lopez getting married, divorcing and and getting remarried like it's going out of style.

Anyway, what's your opinion?

[Raoul Duke]

I really don't care all THAT much. But I think that adults should be able to make this decision, and nobody should be able to force their religious beliefs on them. Or what they think is the true 'sanctity' of marriage. I mean, it really isn't going to affect other hetero marriages..At all...But that's all just what I think.

[BadCoverVersion]

FOR.

Gay people are VALID citizens, they should be treated as such and entitled to the same rights and privileges as any other 'standard' couple.

It's the fucking NOUGHTIES man!

[Grebdron]

Originally posted by BadCoverVersion
FOR.

Gay people are VALID citizens, they should be treated as such and entitled to the same rights and privileges as any other 'standard' couple.

It's the fucking NOUGHTIES man!

Word, yo.

[Tom Samborski]

For.

Gays and lesbians deserve their rights, marriage is one of them.

[Ultrahumanite]

I've got no problem with gay marraige. To quote Thomas Jefferson (on a different subject, but I think the sentiment applies) : "It neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket."

[blankpage]

Originally posted by Raoul Duke
I really don't care all THAT much. But I think that adults should be able to make this decision, and nobody should be able to force their religious beliefs on them. Or what they think is the true 'sanctity' of marriage. I mean, it really isn't going to affect other hetero marriages..At all...But that's all just what I think.


Ya, that's pretty much how I feel.

I mean, I'm "for" it, but what they do is their business. Not mine.

So, I say let them, they have just as much right as anyone else, but I'm not going to make a big fuss about it.

[Moviefan1234]

Originally posted by Tom Samborski
For.

Gays and lesbians deserve their rights, marriage is one of them.

Ditto that.

[Anthony4sho]

Do people actually care? Who care if 2 guys wanna get married. Its not affecting me.

[badberry]

Not being gay, I have no strong feelings on the issue. I won't be upset if they are made legal, but I don't really see a pressing need to do so either...sure, they should get the same financial benefits as a married couple if they are in a 'union', but I don't really get the big fuss about calling it a 'marriage'.

So I guess a firm "meh" from me.

[countchocula]

For.

Someone voted against. Speak up!

[SLAW]

To me, it is just plain biggotry to be against gay marriage. That's just what I think.

[DRbeauty]

Originally posted by SLAW
To me, it is just plain biggotry to be against gay marriage. That's just what I think.

That's not true. You know it pisses me off when people say that people who don't support gay marriage are full of hate or biggoted. Just because they don't believe what u believe? Because of my religous background I don't believe that gays should marry. I don't care if they do though. It's hard to explain. I think it should be up to the churches if they want to marry them or not, and they should have civil unions. I could write a 5 page paper on this subject

[Scarface98.9]

I'm heavily FOR it. Why discriminate just because the two are from the same team? It doesn't make sense to me, considering there's not much sanctity to protect anymore

[ANavissi500]

I am incredibly FOR it. I was talking to this anti guy and I asked him why he even cares about something like gay marriage when it will not affect him in the slightest. His response was something like apathy breeds destrcution of civilizations. Some people...

[Tweek]

[sarcasm mode] I'm against it. Those queers never learn do they?[/sarcasm mode]


honestly, im for gay marriage.
if i want to marry a woman, i should be allowed to.

[Goosey]

I'm for it. Like alot of people here say, it doesn't affect me, so who gives a shit. They should have the same rights we do.

[TheDeadWalk]

Firstly, as Melissa Ethridge said on the daily show:

(Paraphrase)

"People have the wrong idea about gay marriages. We aren't looking to invade all of your churches. We just want the same rights and benefits that come with heterosexual marriages."

And that's so true. One of the biggest things is when a man's partner whom he has been with dies, and the surviving partner is unable to have any connection with his funeral/burial rites. Health insurance is another big tiff.

The only argument that was somewhat thought provoking was in my local paper. The viewpoint stated that blood brothers, cousins, and 'just friends' would be jumping in the marriage boat so they could logroll the benefits while not actually being a 'couple' persay.

But to outlaw gay marriages because of that, there is quite a similar problem with heterosexual marriages. That being this American influx to spend $9000 and go to Russia in order to find a mail-order bride. Are they in love? Most likely not. One is just lonely, the other wants to come to America and reap its benefits.

There's not much quarrel on that though... Weird.

[Unicron]

All for it

i dont care if Garfield marries Oddie. Love is love and if you want to seal it go for it.

[BakeTheMooCow]

Originally posted by DRbeauty
Because of my religous background I don't believe that gays should marry. I don't care if they do though. It's hard to explain.I don't mean to offend, so don't take this the wrong way, but..

This is exactly what religion does to a person. You say that gays shouldn't marry because of what your religious background, but you can't explain why.

I haven't heard a single decent argument that proves that gays shouldn't marry. Most people simply believe it because their religion tells them so, but they can't come up with any reasoning to back it up. Think. Don't just blindly follow what you've been taught.

I am very much FOR gay marriage. It shouldn't even be an issue.

[Adornado]

Originally posted by BakeTheMooCow
I don't mean to offend, so don't take this the wrong way, but..

This is exactly what religion does to a person. You say that gays shouldn't marry because of what your religious background, but you can't explain why.

I haven't heard a single decent argument that proves that gays shouldn't marry. Most people simply believe it because their religion tells them so, but they can't come up with any reasoning to back it up. Think. Don't just blindly follow what you've been taught.

I am very much FOR gay marriage. It shouldn't even be an issue.

Well, I'm pretty sure it says in the Bible that homosexuality is a sin. And many religious folks are against it because in there opinions, it isn't natural. There was a preacher on TV last week saying that since two men or two woman can't make a baby together, it isn't natural.

[BakeTheMooCow]

Originally posted by Adornado
Well, I'm pretty sure it says in the Bible that homosexuality is a sin. And many religious folks are against it because in there opinions, it isn't natural. There was a preacher on TV last week saying that since two men or two woman can't make a baby together, it isn't natural. Alright.

What about couples who can't have babies, due to infertility? Should they not be allowed to marry?

Or couples who can have children, but choose not to. Should they be barred from marrying too?

The idea that marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation is preposterous (pardon the alliteration).

If that were the case, then traditional Christian marriages wouldn't be preluded with the vow "Do you take this man to be your lawful husband; and do you solemnly promise before God and these witnesses that you will love, honor, and keep him in sickness and in health..?" yada yada yada

Because "love" is unimportant in marriage, right?

All that matters is the ability of the couple to have children.

And ofcourse, couples should be required to smoke joints everyday, since marijuana is perfectly 'natural'.

[Thrizzle]

I'm for gay marriage.

My position is this, who gives a fuck what Sally and Jane do in their bedroom in private?

In considering raising children, theres no proof that homosexuals raising a child harm them in any emotion ways.

And if you believe being gay is a sin because its in the bible, you need to brush up on the bible, because theres a lot of weird shit in there. You also need to stop eating shellfish you sinner, and you need to start sacrficing Bulls post-haste......on an altar!

[Ultrahumanite]

My understanding of the Bible is incomplete, at best, but I was led to believe that when Jesus came and established his ministry, he told the people to essentially forget about the old testament, for the most part, and listen to what he told them... in other worlds, those were the old rules, these are the new rules. That's why you don't have to sacrifice a goat to Jehovah and that sort of thing.

So can someone tell me, what was Jesus' view on homosexuality? Did he say anything about it at all? What does the New Testament say?

I'm just curious; I'll probably still support gay marraige... but I'm uninformed about this and I'd like to hear what someone has to say about it.

[flowrchild]

Originally posted by DRbeauty
Because of my religous background I don't believe that gays should marry.

Sounds like bigotry to me...

I am 100% for gay marriage. I think it's sad that we live in a society that doesn't allow people in love to marry, if it doesn't fit into a narrow set of religious moral codes.

[bob]

I'm completely for it. It's all been said, so I'll leave it at that.

[ANavissi500]

Originally posted by Ultrahumanite
My understanding of the Bible is incomplete, at best, but I was led to believe that when Jesus came and established his ministry, he told the people to essentially forget about the old testament, for the most part, and listen to what he told them... in other worlds, those were the old rules, these are the new rules. That's why you don't have to sacrifice a goat to Jehovah and that sort of thing.

So can someone tell me, what was Jesus' view on homosexuality? Did he say anything about it at all? What does the New Testament say?

I'm just curious; I'll probably still support gay marraige... but I'm uninformed about this and I'd like to hear what someone has to say about it.

I have zero idea about anything Bible related but this sounds like a very interesting point that you have made there because as I understand it all anti-gay stuff was in Old Testament only.

[TheDeadWalk]

Originally posted by flowrchild
Sounds like bigotry to me...

I am 100% for gay marriage. I think it's sad that we live in a society that doesn't allow people in love to marry, if it doesn't fit into a narrow set of religious moral codes.

I'm for gay marriage, but I think its wrong to tell those that are religious that they are wrong for their beliefs. If you want freedom, then let freedom reign, including thoughts, beliefs, and feelings.

No need to pull out the bigotry card...

[bmain77]

Originally posted by TheDeadWalk
I'm for gay marriage, but I think its wrong to tell those that are religious that they are wrong for their beliefs. If you want freedom, then let freedom reign, including thoughts, beliefs, and feelings.

No need to pull out the bigotry card...

Exactly...as was pointed out in another thread about this topic. You can't force religions (though child molestation was a ok for years...oops did I say that out loud) to recognize gay weddings, but hell yeah states should.

[SLAW]

Originally posted by bmain77
Exactly...as was pointed out in another thread about this topic. You can't force religions (though child molestation was a ok for years...oops did I say that out loud) to recognize gay weddings, but hell yeah states should.

Yes, I've been saying that for a while now. No religion (and no person) has to recognize gay marriage if it doen't want to. As long as it's privately runned, it can do what it wants. But at the same time, I do think it's biggotry to use your religion to deny people rights.

[Adam J. Hakari]

For

Religionwise, that's up to their faiths. But as far as civil unions go, then by all means gay marriage should be legal.

[Jim H]

You know it pisses me off when people say that people who don't support gay marriage are full of hate or biggoted. Just because they don't believe what u believe?

A bigot is "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."

Really, the definition is so wide it easily fits.

I'm for gay marriage, but I think they should just have civil unions and not marriages. Let the churches decide who they will and won't marry.

[flowrchild]

Originally posted by TheDeadWalk
I'm for gay marriage, but I think its wrong to tell those that are religious that they are wrong for their beliefs. If you want freedom, then let freedom reign, including thoughts, beliefs, and feelings.

And I think it's wrong to tell other people how to live their lives because of their individual religious beliefs, even when they differ from the person they are judging. I think it's egocentric to assume a person's spiritually guided way of life is the way EVERYONE else should live theirs too.

I'm sorry but I think very strong religious beliefs of this nature are dangerous. They lead to a complete violation of civil rights, like when the President tries to pass a friggin' amendment to ban gay marriages.

Live and let live, that's what I think. The difference between me and someone very religious is that I don't have any problem with how they live their life (as long as they're not bothering me or others) but they will sit and scrutinize and judge and try to alter how I live mine.

[DRbeauty]

Originally posted by flowrchild
Sounds like bigotry to me...

I am 100% for gay marriage. I think it's sad that we live in a society that doesn't allow people in love to marry, if it doesn't fit into a narrow set of religious moral codes.

My sister is a lesbian. If she wanted to get married to her girlfriend I would be right there at that alter. I support her. That doesn't mean I believe what she's doing is right. If I was a bigot I wouldn't even talk to her, or even be there. I don't have to defend my religious beliefs, and if I sound like a bigot to you that's fine. I know I'm not and that's all that matters.

[DRbeauty]

Originally posted by BakeTheMooCow
I don't mean to offend, so don't take this the wrong way, but..

This is exactly what religion does to a person. You say that gays shouldn't marry because of what your religious background, but you can't explain why.

I haven't heard a single decent argument that proves that gays shouldn't marry. Most people simply believe it because their religion tells them so, but they can't come up with any reasoning to back it up. Think. Don't just blindly follow what you've been taught.

I am very much FOR gay marriage. It shouldn't even be an issue.

I can explain why I just don't choose to go into a whole drawn out argument. I've always told people that there are two ways you can argue something. Religously and secularly. Now if you don't believe what I do religously, then it doesn't make much sense to argue the point does it? I don't believe that gays should marry because in the Old Testament God wrote against homosexuality. He said it was an abomination, blah blah blah, I could go all day. Now if you don't believe this then I'm wasting my time. Christians believe that marriage was created by God between a man and a woman. That is why I believe that homosexuals shouldn't marry because it is a spiritual thing.

Now lying is wrong, and I do it. Premarital sex is wrong and I love to do it. THat is why I don't like to get into these discussions. Because everyone sins. I don't care if gay people get married. But I'm not going to say it's right just because you want me to. I don't follow my religion blindly. I don't justify what I do wrong. If you don't think that homosexuality is a sin that's fine. But just because someone else does doesn't make them a bigot.

[DRbeauty]

Originally posted by DRbeauty
I can explain why I just don't choose to go into a whole drawn out argument. I've always told people that there are two ways you can argue something. Religously and secularly. Now if you don't believe what I do religously, then it doesn't make much sense to argue the point does it? I don't believe that gays should marry because in the Old Testament God wrote against homosexuality. He said it was an abomination, blah blah blah, I could go all day. Now if you don't believe this then I'm wasting my time. Christians believe that marriage was created by God between a man and a woman. That is why I believe that homosexuals shouldn't marry because it is a spiritual thing.

Now lying is wrong, and I do it. Premarital sex is wrong and I love to do it. THat is why I don't like to get into these discussions. Because everyone sins. I don't care if gay people get married. But I'm not going to say it's right just because you want me to. I don't follow my religion blindly. I don't justify what I do wrong. If you don't think that homosexuality is a sin that's fine. But just because someone else does doesn't make them a bigot. That definition does not apply to me because I'm very tolerant of all races, and religion, and everything else. Maybe some of you should see if that definition applies to yourselves.

[BubbaStrangelove]

It's a bunch of bullshit.

As if the fucking church has trademarked the word "marriage"....

Get off your fucking pedestals and open your eyes a bit.

The priests are not allowed to be married, yet some of them like to ram their staffs into little boys. What does marriage have to do with morality. Nothing. It would be like me saying that the church shouldn't have the right to support the Ten Commandments because I think those words are groovy, and what your priests do destroys the sanctity of those commandments because they are showing support for them and making them part of who they are and what they proclaim.

It really doesn't make much sense when it's put that way, does it?

[jeo4]

Being part of a society chock full of free speech, I can support my religion and not gay marriages all I want. That second no vote is mine. It's my right to follow God and believe the Holy Bible. That includes my disagreement with gay marriages. I say if it pertains to legal rights for gay couples, it isn't my place to ban them from their basic needs and privileges. I wish no ill will toward homosexuals (some of whom I call friends) in personal beliefs, legal matters or equal opportunities at work and school. I hope they enjoy the exact same human rights as the rest of us. However, my faith doesn't make me a biggot. It makes me a person with a different set of values than those mentioned. And it better NEVER become an issue of whether or not I have the right to disagree. If it pertains to my faith, then free speech wins again and I can completely disagree with it.

:)

[Jon Lyrik]

If two adults wish to be married, it's their business and not anybody elses.

It won't happen any time soon in many of the southern states. In places like Mississsippi they don't even allow gay sex or sodomy. Geez, are the lawmakers stuck in the dark ages or what? What business is it of theres that two people of legal age are having sex?

"Oh no, Clem! The two kids across the street are having sex! FROM BEHIND! Quick, get your gun, we gotta blast these evil-doing unChristian™ sinners to the furnaces of Hell, because the law and The Lord told us to!"

The Bible is a fine book that I have followed for most of my life, but it's not the law and shouldn't be the law. Religion and law don't mix well at all, and not everybody shares the same beliefs.

[Annie Hall]

I think the angle of it being for financial rights or what not is silly. The point of being able to get married is not to share money...it is because two people love each other enough to dedicate themselves to that other person. Simple as that. Who's to tell them they can't because it's against the bible? What if they're not religious or christian?

I don't want to be rude, but, why should I follow ANY christian rules or beliefs. I'm Jewish. I don't believe the same things as a christian, and I shouldn't be subject to it.

I know that some 50-70 percent of the American people say that they are evangelists...but I say that a religion only goes so far as it does for those who believe it. I'm not making you step on glass when you get married, my gay friend isn't making you sleep with other men/women, why do people try to prevent THEM from their own business?

[BubbaStrangelove]

Originally posted by jeo4
Being part of a society chock full of free speech, I can support my religion and not gay marriages all I want.



Yes, you are right. There is no legal stance against your moral objection. The problem is that other's are taking their moral stance and using it to change laws. It's a bit lop-sided.

I mean... If some guy was going to marry a woman, and was boning his secretary, I can understand someone objecting to the marriage. That makes sense.

But to give a pre-emptive objection, and to furthermore tie up our courts and tax payer dollars, just because you object to the POSSIBILITY that some arbitrary person with a certain moral code will get married....... Again - a bit lop-sided.

You want to talk about tradition, and how things are -- there used to be a time when people actually had to know the people getting married before they could object toward their union. Now..... Apparently you can try to change the Constitution of these United State because you don't want people settling down.

It's a Jerry Springer topic at best. This has no place in law.

[notchreturns]

I'm against gay marriage.

Ewwwwwww. Just the thought of two people in love wanting to be together like anyone else is sickening.

Ugh... how dare they... :rolleyes: :eek:

[BubbaStrangelove]

Originally posted by notchreturns
I'm against gay marriage.

Ewwwwwww. Just the thought of two people in love wanting to be together like anyone else is sickening.

Ugh... how dare they... :rolleyes: :eek:



You're missing the point, notch.

Can't you see that if we allow gay marriage, the obvious next step would be to allow people to have sex with animals, and to molest little children? The Oracle has spoken!

"I am George W. Bush, and I approve this post!"

[DRbeauty]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
It's a bunch of bullshit.

As if the fucking church has trademarked the word "marriage"....

Get off your fucking pedestals and open your eyes a bit.

The priests are not allowed to be married, yet some of them like to ram their staffs into little boys. What does marriage have to do with morality. Nothing. It would be like me saying that the church shouldn't have the right to support the Ten Commandments because I think those words are groovy, and what your priests do destroys the sanctity of those commandments because they are showing support for them and making them part of who they are and what they proclaim.

It really doesn't make much sense when it's put that way, does it?

Um first of all, I didn't say that the church trademarked the word marriage. If you're going to get all upset get upset over something I actually said. Second of all my church doesn't have priests. Don't condemn religion as a whole for the sins of a few

[DRbeauty]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Yes, you are right. There is no legal stance against your moral objection. The problem is that other's are taking their moral stance and using it to change laws. It's a bit lop-sided.

I mean... If some guy was going to marry a woman, and was boning his secretary, I can understand someone objecting to the marriage. That makes sense.

But to give a pre-emptive objection, and to furthermore tie up our courts and tax payer dollars, just because you object to the POSSIBILITY that some arbitrary person with a certain moral code will get married....... Again - a bit lop-sided.

You want to talk about tradition, and how things are -- there used to be a time when people actually had to know the people getting married before they could object toward their union. Now..... Apparently you can try to change the Constitution of these United State because you don't want people settling down.


It's a Jerry Springer topic at best. This has no place in law.

You are right this has no place in law. It's ridiculous for there to actually be a ban. It's funny how the government picks and chooses what it wants to keep "sacred"

[DRbeauty]

Originally posted by jeo4
Being part of a society chock full of free speech, I can support my religion and not gay marriages all I want. That second no vote is mine. It's my right to follow God and believe the Holy Bible. That includes my disagreement with gay marriages. I say if it pertains to legal rights for gay couples, it isn't my place to ban them from their basic needs and privileges. I wish no ill will toward homosexuals (some of whom I call friends) in personal beliefs, legal matters or equal opportunities at work and school. I hope they enjoy the exact same human rights as the rest of us. However, my faith doesn't make me a biggot. It makes me a person with a different set of values than those mentioned. And it better NEVER become an issue of whether or not I have the right to disagree. If it pertains to my faith, then free speech wins again and I can completely disagree with it.

:)

I concur. It's funny how my gay friends see my side and would never accuse me of being a bigot. But then again, they know me, and don't pretend to.

[SLAW]

Originally posted by DRbeauty
I can explain why I just don't choose to go into a whole drawn out argument. I've always told people that there are two ways you can argue something. Religously and secularly. Now if you don't believe what I do religously, then it doesn't make much sense to argue the point does it? I don't believe that gays should marry because in the Old Testament God wrote against homosexuality. He said it was an abomination, blah blah blah, I could go all day. Now if you don't believe this then I'm wasting my time. Christians believe that marriage was created by God between a man and a woman. That is why I believe that homosexuals shouldn't marry because it is a spiritual thing.

Now lying is wrong, and I do it. Premarital sex is wrong and I love to do it. THat is why I don't like to get into these discussions. Because everyone sins. I don't care if gay people get married. But I'm not going to say it's right just because you want me to. I don't follow my religion blindly. I don't justify what I do wrong. If you don't think that homosexuality is a sin that's fine. But just because someone else does doesn't make them a bigot.


Congratulations, Drbeauty!! That was the first post against gay marriage that does not come off biggoted. Pretty rational in that second part. Once again, no religon has to recognize homosexual marriage, but the state should. Churches do not own marriage.

[BorderEevilIII]

Originally posted by notchreturns
I'm against gay marriage.

Ewwwwwww. Just the thought of two people in love wanting to be together like anyone else is sickening.

Ugh... how dare they... :rolleyes: :eek:

I do RESPECT people's belief's when choosing NO but what the fuck is w/ this eeeeew shit you are going into?
I feel like I have fallen into Jerry Fucking Springer All of a sudden?!?!


RANT OVER

[Annie Hall]

Originally posted by BorderEevilIII
I do RESPECT people's belief's when choosing NO but what the fuck is w/ this eeeeew shit you are going into?
I feel like I have fallen into Jerry Fucking Springer All of a sudden?!?!


RANT OVER

If I know my notch-and I'm pretty sure I know my notch-that was sarcasm right thar.

[jeo4]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
You're missing the point, notch.

Can't you see that if we allow gay marriage, the obvious next step would be to allow people to have sex with animals, and to molest little children? The Oracle has spoken!

"I am George W. Bush, and I approve this post!"

:D

Funny funny funny!

We laugh about it now, but I just see NAMBLA foaming at the mouth over this concept.

:p

[BorderEevilIII]

Originally posted by Annie Hall
If I know my notch-and I'm pretty sure I know my notch-that was sarcasm right thar.

If it was was I did not find any inch of humor in it... Its followed by two smilies the rolling eyes & the eek that pissed me off.

[Annie Hall]

Originally posted by BorderEevilIII
If it was was I did not find any inch of humor in it... Its followed by two smilies the rolling eyes & the eek that pissed me off.

I'm pretty sure-I don't want to argue too much for him without him BEING here-that he was rolling his eyes at the sentiment he was portraying in such a tongue-and-cheek manner.

He was pointing out the absurdity of people being against gay marriage by saying that two people in love should not be married.

I don't really know why that pisses you off?

[BorderEevilIII]

Originally posted by Annie Hall

I don't really know why that pisses you off?



Saying that marriage is supposed to be between Adam & Eve and NOT Adam & Steve hey I respect views like that.


This STATEMENT I Have A PROBLEM with....

1.Ewwwwwww. Just the thought of two people in love wanting to be together like anyone else is sickening.

2.Ugh... how dare they...

3. And like I said earlier...... this :rolleyes: & :eek:
These 2 smilies attached sums up why I am pissed off.

Should I be worried about it? Heck No? But like you said it's just a sarcasm/humorous statement.

Statements like these needs to be re-worded.

[badberry]

Whoa Border, serenity now :) I thought it was very obvious that he was making a sarcastic joke there. Like Annie said, the rolling eyes is to point out the ignorance of those kind of statements...

I'm sure it was not meant to offend.

[Jim H]

In places like Mississsippi they don't even allow gay sex or sodomy.

As I recall, a recent decision in the courts voided all those laws.

I know that some 50-70 percent of the American people say that they are evangelists...

A good chunk of Christian Americans also believe in things like reincarnation, or also believe in other gods, or belief in various pagan things. Kind of odd.

[ANavissi500]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
You're missing the point, notch.

Can't you see that if we allow gay marriage, the obvious next step would be to allow people to have sex with animals, and to molest little children? The Oracle has spoken!

"I am George W. Bush, and I approve this post!"

I am 99 percent sure that notch was being sarcastic.

[Annie Hall]

Originally posted by BorderEevilIII
Saying that marriage is supposed to be between Adam & Eve and NOT Adam & Steve hey I respect views like that.


This STATEMENT I Have A PROBLEM with....

1.Ewwwwwww. Just the thought of two people in love wanting to be together like anyone else is sickening.

2.Ugh... how dare they...

3. And like I said earlier...... this :rolleyes: & :eek:
These 2 smilies attached sums up why I am pissed off.

Should I be worried about it? Heck No? But like you said it's just a sarcasm/humorous statement.

Statements like these needs to be re-worded.

I don't understand, though, why someone (notch) so obviously IN SUPPORT of gay marriage and with these blatant smiley's MOCKING the very statements offends you so much.

Like, I know you understand it was sarcasm but...is it just the fact that he formulated this sentence, however fake and sarcastic he intended it?

[BorderEevilIII]

I pretty much said what I had to say on this matter.

[BubbaStrangelove]

Originally posted by ANavissi500
I am 99 percent sure that notch was being sarcastic.


Maybe you should run that sarcasm checker through my post once.

:p

[badberry]

As proven time and time again, sarcasm apparently doesn't translate well over the internet...

How bout from now on, everyone just assume that the post you are reading is not intended to be taken literally? Then, nobody's really saying anything and nobody can get offended? :p

[BubbaStrangelove]

Or we could be sure to read through the thread before posting.


"So you have no frame of reference here, Donny. You're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie and wants to know..." - Walter, The Big Lebowski

[notchreturns]

I'm for gay marriage, actully. No offense was meant Border, I can assure you of that. I'm for any kind of marriage. If Bob wants to marry his pet lizard, Tito, I could careless. Doesn't exactly put a hurten in my wavos, y'know?

Me post was sarcasm. I can get heavy with that, lose my head and confuse people.

I've been watching to many Woody Allen films lately, that's the problem.... errmmm, gotta go!!

[SLAW]

The people have spoken, gay marriages for all!

[Morgana]

Originally posted by SLAW
The people have spoken, gay marriages for all!

Hold on SLAW, I haven't spoken yet. Oh wait... I'm FOR gay marriages as well! God knows I've had gay friends who were in more monogamous and devoted relationships than I've ever been in. (And I'm straight. ;))

For those who want to tie the knot, regardless of sexual orientation, LET them!

[DRbeauty]

Originally posted by SLAW
Congratulations, Drbeauty!! That was the first post against gay marriage that does not come off biggoted. Pretty rational in that second part. Once again, no religon has to recognize homosexual marriage, but the state should. Churches do not own marriage.

Thank you. I try to get my point across without sounding like an asshole, but sometimes...just...doesn't... happen:rolleyes:

[BorderEevilIII]

Originally posted by notchreturns

Me post was sarcasm. I can get heavy with that, lose my head and confuse people.


oh ok thats what I figured...

[Benny]

I'm all for gay marriage. I for one would enjoy going to a gay wedding. I'm sure it would be quite an extravagant ceremony! ;)

But really, I think it's ridiculous that they're even THINKING of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marraige. This amendment wouldn't stop them from happening... look at what happened with prohibition. I don't think it would cause degradation of marriage in society today either, because marraige is already in bad shape. Look at celebrities and how long those marriages normally last!

[TheDeadWalk]

Originally posted by flowrchild
And I think it's wrong to tell other people how to live their lives because of their individual religious beliefs, even when they differ from the person they are judging. I think it's egocentric to assume a person's spiritually guided way of life is the way EVERYONE else should live theirs too.

I'm sorry but I think very strong religious beliefs of this nature are dangerous. They lead to a complete violation of civil rights, like when the President tries to pass a friggin' amendment to ban gay marriages.

Live and let live, that's what I think. The difference between me and someone very religious is that I don't have any problem with how they live their life (as long as they're not bothering me or others) but they will sit and scrutinize and judge and try to alter how I live mine.

I don't believe DRbeauty tried to tell anyone how to live their lives. She simply stated that she doesn't believe in gay marriages because of her religious beliefs. Having personal beliefs and set of values is what is having a religion is all about. They don't have to be on par with yours or mine.

Where she is slightly hazy however, is where she stated that it should be up to the churches for gay marriages. They don't want the churches, or the pope for that matter. They want to be able to go and get a marriage license and have their own marriage ceremony at their own place of their own choosing. (mostly)

But people dog on religion so much anymore that they lose sight of why exactly they dog on it. It gets a lot of flack because of people attempting to use it to control the rest of society as a whole, which is wrong. However, when any religious person opens their mouth to state a belief, they get jumped on and called for bigotry. I don't think its egocentrism or ethnocentrism of any kind. I just think its having beliefs. Live and let live...

[SLAW]

Originally posted by DRbeauty
Thank you. I try to get my point across without sounding like an asshole, but sometimes...just...doesn't... happen:rolleyes:

What? You did fine that time.

[JohnTheHenchman]

I'm not sure I'm down with a bunch of people telling DRbeauty that she's a bigot and what not, I don't care if the definition is a broad one, we all know the context in which it is used.

I've been attacked for being gay before, which is funny, because I'm heterosexual but people like to assume things about me because I'm quiet when I'm around people I feel no need to talk to. Those people are the bigots.

No one in my family is in favor of gay marriage, that doesn't mean they want to exterminate gays from existence or deny them of anything it's just a belief. The way and time in which my parents were raised, that's how this sort of thing was looked at. Should I tell them they're awful because of it? No. Should I expect them to change their minds? No.

There are two sides to every topic, not everyone is going to agree that gay marriage is ok and not everyone has to. Frankly, the world would be boring if we all agreed on everything.

[Lynn Minmei]

Originally posted by BadCoverVersion
FOR.

Gay people are VALID citizens, they should be treated as such and entitled to the same rights and privileges as any other 'standard' couple.

It's the fucking NOUGHTIES man!

My thoughts exactly.

And the whole "The Bible is against it, blah, blah, blah" speech doesn't quite work, as The Bible says nowhere in it that gays should be treated differently than anyone else.

I mean, Jesus preached to the Lepers and the Gentiles, right? Wouldn't he preach to everyone in the world today just the same?

[DRbeauty]

Originally posted by TheDeadWalk
I don't believe DRbeauty tried to tell anyone how to live their lives. She simply stated that she doesn't believe in gay marriages because of her religious beliefs. Having personal beliefs and set of values is what is having a religion is all about. They don't have to be on par with yours or mine.

Where she is slightly hazy however, is where she stated that it should be up to the churches for gay marriages. They don't want the churches, or the pope for that matter. They want to be able to go and get a marriage license and have their own marriage ceremony at their own place of their own choosing. (mostly)

But people dog on religion so much anymore that they lose sight of why exactly they dog on it. It gets a lot of flack because of people attempting to use it to control the rest of society as a whole, which is wrong. However, when any religious person opens their mouth to state a belief, they get jumped on and called for bigotry. I don't think its egocentrism or ethnocentrism of any kind. I just think its having beliefs. Live and let live...

well what i meant was that they should get a marriage license if they want one, but it should be up to the church if they want to marry them through the church

[DRbeauty]

Originally posted by Lynn Minmei
My thoughts exactly.

And the whole "The Bible is against it, blah, blah, blah" speech doesn't quite work, as The Bible says nowhere in it that gays should be treated differently than anyone else.

I mean, Jesus preached to the Lepers and the Gentiles, right? Wouldn't he preach to everyone in the world today just the same?

I don't know what you mean about the bible speech not working. The Bible does say that practicing homosexuality is a sin. Even my gay friends have read that for themselves. As far as Jesus goes, I believe he would preach to everyone the same. However, He also said that He did not come to change the laws. I think people have the understanding that the Old Testament shouldn't be taken into account because of the New Testament, however that's not true. The reason that Jesus didn't talk about all these issues is that they were already covered in the Old Testament. I'm not trying to be Bible girl or anything, although I'm glad that all these years of sabbath school has counted for something. Cause God knows that uh I'm not the most religious person on the planet. and like I said I sin everyday, am not perfect. I don't have the right to judge anyone, however I won't stand for people tearing down my beliefs just because they don't believe the same. Not that you were Lynn, I was just saying.

On a side note I do believe religion can be very dangerous.

[DRbeauty]

Originally posted by TheDeadWalk
I don't believe DRbeauty tried to tell anyone how to live their lives. She simply stated that she doesn't believe in gay marriages because of her religious beliefs. Having personal beliefs and set of values is what is having a religion is all about. They don't have to be on par with yours or mine.

Where she is slightly hazy however, is where she stated that it should be up to the churches for gay marriages. They don't want the churches, or the pope for that matter. They want to be able to go and get a marriage license and have their own marriage ceremony at their own place of their own choosing. (mostly)

But people dog on religion so much anymore that they lose sight of why exactly they dog on it. It gets a lot of flack because of people attempting to use it to control the rest of society as a whole, which is wrong. However, when any religious person opens their mouth to state a belief, they get jumped on and called for bigotry. I don't think its egocentrism or ethnocentrism of any kind. I just think its having beliefs. Live and let live...

Thank you and I think this is one of the few posts I've read where someone has written with a truly open mind. All the way around.

[Raymond Babbit]

Originally posted by Lynn Minmei
My thoughts exactly.

And the whole "The Bible is against it, blah, blah, blah" speech doesn't quite work, as The Bible says nowhere in it that gays should be treated differently than anyone else.

I mean, Jesus preached to the Lepers and the Gentiles, right? Wouldn't he preach to everyone in the world today just the same?

I agree completely with you, Lynn. One could also make the point that, although the bible says it's wrong, the Constitution is the supreme law of this land, not the bible, and the 14th amendment (at least I think it's that one) guarantees all citizens the same rights. To say gays can't get married implies, to me, that they are not citizens. How is this any different than how blacks were treated 100 years ago.

To make another point, has anyone noticed that many things people say against gay marriage were once said about interracial marriages? Those are more socially acceptable now so I think (and hope) that one day, gay marriages will be too.

No one is saying people have to accept homosexuality, just that they should tolerate it. You don't have to think it's right, or ok, but they are citizens, and therefor are entitled to the same rights as everyone else.

[RicochetShaw]

Originally posted by Raymond Babbit
I agree completely with you, Lynn. One could also make the point that, although the bible says it's wrong, the Constitution is the supreme law of this land, not the bible,


Don't go flinging around nonsense like that. What's the chapter and verse to that, sir?

[Raymond Babbit]

Originally posted by RicochetShaw
Don't go flinging around nonsense like that. What's the chapter and verse to that, sir?

If you're asking about the chapter and verse to the bible that's against gays, I don't know, just repeating what I've been told, and since I'm not religious, I don't really care what the bible says anyway, I'm just trying to say why I think you can't use religion as a reason.

If however, you're talking about the Constitution, I believe it's somewhere in the preamble that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

[chasingbanky]

I am wholeheartedly for(And I'm straight). I believe in our freedom of religion and belief, and for the entire country to impose their religious beliefs to outlaw something its unconstitutional. Not saying some gay marriages may be for financial reasons, but I'd be willing to bet that a higher percentage of straight marriages are for financial reasons also.....So that's a pretty bullshit arguement to hide behind.

[Jim H]

Originally posted by Raymond Babbit
If you're asking about the chapter and verse to the bible that's against gays, I don't know, just repeating what I've been told, and since I'm not religious, I don't really care what the bible says anyway, I'm just trying to say why I think you can't use religion as a reason.

If however, you're talking about the Constitution, I believe it's somewhere in the preamble that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

That's what people usually refer to.

There's also Romans 1:26-27

1:26 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:

1:27 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.

[RicochetShaw]

Originally posted by Raymond Babbit
If you're asking about the chapter and verse to the bible that's against gays, I don't know, just repeating what I've been told,


Whoever told you that having something as the supreme law is against the Bible, though? I don't think having a Constitution is a sin...

[Raymond Babbit]

Originally posted by RicochetShaw
Whoever told you that having something as the supreme law is against the Bible, though? I don't think having a Constitution is a sin...

Didn't mean the Constitution was mentioned in a bad way in the bible, I meant the gay thing. Guess I worded it weird. Sorry.

[Raymond Babbit]

Originally posted by Jim H
Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

That's what people usually refer to.

Wait, so if "thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind", doesn't that mean men aren't supposed to have sex with women either, and vice versa?

[Jim H]

Originally posted by Raymond Babbit
Wait, so if "thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind", doesn't that mean men aren't supposed to have sex with women either, and vice versa?

No. It is saying: Don't lie with a man as you would with a woman (as in sex).

[Fettdog]

I personally believe that if two people are in love and want to make a commitement to each other then they should be allowed to get married, regardless of gender.

Marriage and religion should be treated as two completely separate concepts - I'm hetro and have been happily married to my wife fo over three years now, but I class myself as agnostic and don't subscribe to any religion, although I do respect those who wish to follow whatever religion works for them.

What really pisses me off though is the sanctimonious attitute that a lot of religious people have to anything that they don't consider 'normal'. The amount of hatred I've seen coming from these 'good' people is staggering - surely "God" loves all his children, or so I was told when used to be made to go to Sunday School.

Also, the amount of contradictions in the bible - take the 10 Commandments which were supposedly given to Moses by God himself - nowhere in these commandments does it prohibit same-sex relationships. However it does state in the 7th Commandment "Thou shalt not commit adultery", but being as Mary was betrothed or married to Joseph (depending on your interpretation), then surely by having God's child, she is doing just that. (And let's not even get into the concept that by impregnating her without her knowledge, God effectively raped Mary)

I think religion should be a personal belief system - if you believe that same-sex couples whould not marry, then that's your prerogative, but whenever organised religion gets involved in anything, the hypocrisy and sanctimonity is nauseating. The fact that the Catholic Church would effectively be bankrupted if it had to settle on all the claims that it's good, wholesome priests buggered their choirboys is quite telling, as is the very fact that despite being the richest nation on the planet, the Vatican rarely helps out it's own followers in their hours of need. But then again. God moves in mysterious ways, right?

OK, I'm digressing, but bottom line - whatever your opinion is, I'll respect it, just afford me the same courtesy! :)

[Fettdog]

** Warning - this post contains humour and irony **

While writing the above post, I happened to notice the 10th Commandment - those of you with a sense of humour and a bit of lateral thinking ability will see what made me smile in light of the discussions on this thread; the rest of you - never mind, you probably wouldn't find it amusing anyway........

10th Commandment; Verse 17 "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's."

[Psychocandy]

Originally posted by Fettdog
** Warning - this post contains humour and irony **

While writing the above post, I happened to notice the 10th Commandment - those of you with a sense of humour and a bit of lateral thinking ability will see what made me smile in light of the discussions on this thread; the rest of you - never mind, you probably wouldn't find it amusing anyway........

10th Commandment; Verse 17 "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's."

That is funny.

As for gay marriage. Hell yeah. I had an debate with some colleagues at work a few months ago about this very issue. I was shocked to discover that about two thirds of the people I work with are homophobic. They tried to sell me the whole "it's unnatural" manifesto and I told them that I was both shocked and disappointed in their attitude and asked them to explain how they arrived at such a conclusion. Some said it was because of the bible. Not a single one of these people ever attend mass or church or have ever come across as being of a particularly religious persuasion. I asked if they believed everything in the bible. The answer was "no...of course not". So basically they believed what they chose to believe because it leant their "moral stance" some "legitimate" support. They actually had the audacity to play the whole "man + woman = baby" whilst "man + man or woman + woman = unholy" card. So I asked them...gently....if they had only had sex whilst trying to have a child and never outside of marriage. Because the bible does not look favourably upon those who fornicate for pleasure. Then they had the audacity to start questoning why someone who was straight would get so hung up about whether people he knew were homophobic or not. At that point I threw my hands up in the air and went back to work.

That's why it's gratifying to come here and find that so many people seem to exude common sense when it comes to this particular issue.

[gyro_44]

Originally posted by Psychocandy
That is funny.

As for gay marriage. Hell yeah. I had an debate with some colleagues at work a few months ago about this very issue. I was shocked to discover that about two thirds of the people I work with are homophobic. They tried to sell me the whole "it's unnatural" manifesto and I told them that I was both shocked and disappointed in their attitude and asked them to explain how they arrived at such a conclusion. Some said it was because of the bible. Not a single one of these people ever attend mass or church or have ever come across as being of a particularly religious persuasion. I asked if they believed everything in the bible. The answer was "no...of course not". So basically they believed what they chose to believe because it leant their "moral stance" some "legitimate" support. They actually had the audacity to play the whole "man + woman = baby" whilst "man + man or woman + woman = unholy" card. So I asked them...gently....if they had only had sex whilst trying to have a child and never outside of marriage. Because the bible does not look favourably upon those who fornicate for pleasure. Then they had the audacity to start questoning why someone who was straight would get so hung up about whether people he knew were homophobic or not. At that point I threw my hands up in the air and went back to work.

That's why it's gratifying to come here and find that so many people seem to exude common sense when it comes to this particular issue.
First off, kudos for holding your ground with your co-workers. To sit in silence would speak volumes, but for the wrong reasons. Sometimes the most important thing to do is tell the others that you believe what they are saying is wrong, because that must reach their ears.

All of your rebuttals against why they did not support same-sex marriage are ones I have argued myself. I had a high school friend who would make a face whenver anything homosexual was brought up, and she argued that it was unnatural for something like that to happen. Did she attend church every Sunday? Not at all. Instantly, the "that was how man and woman were intended to be" card becomes void. She was just being passively homophobic, probably due to peer influence growing up. It was nothing to her to feel this way, but when she would make that face, I would make a face of my own (meaning, cringing).

And when people are not playing the man + man/woman + woman = unholy card, perhaps they break out the man + man = procreation is an impossibility card. Procreation is not required of every couple and in every marriage. Does a heterosexual couple who are unable to have children have NO WAY of contributing to society? I think not. But by this logic, they should not be allowed to stay married.

The Darwinism angle is one my favorites, for its sheer ridiculousness. Some people seem to think that condoning same-sex marriage on a national level would be dangerous for society, because, basically, the world would turn gay and the number of couples not procreating would lead to the eventual thinning out of world population. What bull shit.

The only opponents of same-sex marriage who I can truly respect (and there are certainly some I do) are those with a religious background and strong beliefs, who abide by the compassion expressed in the Bible when it comes to loving your fellow man and hating the sin, not the sinner. The people who forget these cornerstones of faith and understanding can become fanatics. And everyone else can become simply deluded.

Anyway, excellent points that I'm merely reiterating.

[Jim H]

The Darwinism angle is one my favorites, for its sheer ridiculousness. Some people seem to think that condoning same-sex marriage on a national level would be dangerous for society, because, basically, the world would turn gay and the number of couples not procreating would lead to the eventual thinning out of world population. What bull shit.

Yeah. Shouldn't we be GLAD if it led to a thinning out of the world's population?

[Lynn7]

Actually, a kid recently told his mother that it is considered "cool" to be gay at the local high school. I have also heard (on a national level) that it is becoming more common for kids to try same-sex sex. It's not suprising since sex is now becoming just another form of recreation for teens.

[Jon Lyrik]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Actually, a kid recently told his mother that it is considered "cool" to be gay at the local high school.

What, did this become passe now too?

http://www.anopheles.net/artimages/finished/blingbling.jpg

[Thrizzle]

Lynn I reeeeeaaaallllly doubt that....

[Lynn7]

What do you doubt? The kid who said it is becoming cool to be gay? The schools are teaching acceptance of people who are different, so the fact it is becoming acceptable or even cool is not unbelievable- Will and Grace has been one of the most popular tv shows and how about Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.Even one of the soap operas has a major character's daughter who is gay. If soap operas aren't holding back from gay characters, then you knowit's getting to be accepted or cool. It is not teenagers who are watching the soaps it is the grannies.

Or do you doubt that sex is becoming more recreational? Aren't kids having sex on the bus or in the rest rooms? They are having orgies and/or having a different partner each night. Look at the show Sex in the City- were those characters unusual? I didn't hear anyone complain that those characters were out of the ordinary.They switched sex partners with frequency. Why is it far fetched to think teens are having sex with kids of the same sex?It might be more common with girls than with boys but it is happening. Madonna, Drew Barrymore and other celebs have no qualms about sharing their bi-sexual experiences. The teens are doing this more often becasue it is totally acceptable. Anyway,I'm not making this stuff up; it's in the news.

[SLAW]

Originally posted by Lynn7
What do you doubt? The kid who said it is becoming cool to be gay? The schools are teaching acceptance of people who are different, so the fact it is becoming acceptable or even cool is not unbelievable- Will and Grace has been one of the most popular tv shows and how about Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.Even one of the soap operas has a major character's daughter who is gay. If soap operas aren't holding back from gay characters, then you knowit's getting to be accepted or cool. It is not teenagers who are watching the soaps it is the grannies.

Or do you doubt that sex is becoming more recreational? Aren't kids having sex on the bus or in the rest rooms? They are having orgies and/or having a different partner each night. Look at the show Sex in the City- were those characters unusual? I didn't hear anyone complain that those characters were out of the ordinary.They switched sex partners with frequency. Why is it far fetched to think teens are having sex with kids of the same sex?It might be more common with girls than with boys but it is happening. Madonna, Drew Barrymore and other celebs have no qualms about sharing their bi-sexual experiences. The teens are doing this more often becasue it is totally acceptable. Anyway,I'm not making this stuff up; it's in the news.

You really don't know any of this. It's all your speculation. You're comparing real life to t.v shows and if you hear one report about kids haing sex somewhere or girls being caught kissing than that means it's in to be out? No it's not. I personally don't care who has sex with who. Even if it's teenagers. If they're having sexual experiences (which they will anyway) with someone of the same sex, than I don't care. However, homosexuality still makes people's butt cheaks tighten still to this day. It is not a fun thing to be for people.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Lynn7
What do you doubt? The kid who said it is becoming cool to be gay? The schools are teaching acceptance of people who are different, so the fact it is becoming acceptable or even cool is not unbelievable- Will and Grace has been one of the most popular tv shows and how about Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.Even one of the soap operas has a major character's daughter who is gay. If soap operas aren't holding back from gay characters, then you knowit's getting to be accepted or cool. It is not teenagers who are watching the soaps it is the grannies.

Or do you doubt that sex is becoming more recreational? Aren't kids having sex on the bus or in the rest rooms? They are having orgies and/or having a different partner each night. Look at the show Sex in the City- were those characters unusual? I didn't hear anyone complain that those characters were out of the ordinary.They switched sex partners with frequency. Why is it far fetched to think teens are having sex with kids of the same sex?It might be more common with girls than with boys but it is happening. Madonna, Drew Barrymore and other celebs have no qualms about sharing their bi-sexual experiences. The teens are doing this more often becasue it is totally acceptable. Anyway,I'm not making this stuff up; it's in the news.



Ok, before Sex and the City ever came out kids were screwing around to begin with. They didn't need a TV show to give them permission. I'm 23 and in my junior year of high school one girl got caught blowing a guy in the bathroom and two guys on the soccer team got caught doing the same in the utility closet of the school gym. This was before the popularity of Sex and the City, which didn't even premiere until my senior year of highschool.

Sex has been treated recreationally for centuries, the only difference is its less of a hassle now since guys don't have to sift through layers of petticoats and bustles just to get to the kill zone. Why do you think prostitution is called "The World's Oldest Profession"?

And during the height of Will and Grace's popularity, Matthew Sheppard was beaten to death. Hell my mother freaked out when she saw David and Keith from Six Feet Under kiss. In fact she made the same sound she makes when she sees a cockroach.

The main kind of homosexually that is wildly accepted in this society is lesbianism, lipstick lesbianism to be exact, which is usually fake. Lesbianism has always been more acceptable then homosexuality. Hitler persecuted gay men and sent them to concentration camps but couldn't fathom the idea of women having sex for any other reason then to procreate.

[Jim H]

Or do you doubt that sex is becoming more recreational?

It's a matter of relativity. Relative to 50 years ago in America, yes. We are *finally* coming out of the effects of the Victorian era, after all. But hey, teenage pregnancy and STD rates are going down.

As far as it being "cool" to be gay... Maybe in some very specific isolated cases. I grew up in a very rich, liberal, northern area, and gays were still treated poorly in high school. I don't think that has changed in the past 3 years.

[Thrizzle]

Lynn all those shows u mentioned are about adults have normal relationships with other adults. Not having sex with someone different every night. And in high school kids arent "hip" to the current Soap Opera storylines, they usually dont watch Will and Grace, and they certainly dont watch Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.

I can assure you the world isn't getting "gayer". :D

[Lynn7]

You guys all misunderstood my post. I think TV does make things seem more acceptable because it makes things seem common but tv also reflects what is going on in society. The reason I used the soap opera example is because the soaps are watched by grannies who are not known to be the most liberal audience. They tend to be old fashioned and if they are showing a gay character in a very prominent role, you can be sure that gay behavior is being accepted into mainstream society.

I do not take tv shows as proof for any statement I might make. I was just using an anecdote. I have heard about the growing sexual experimentation on many news shows over the past few years and have read about it in newspapers and magazines. I am a TV news junkie but I also read a lot. I write a lot too as you can tell.:)

I know that sex has always been around,but it is much more permisable these days. A girl could get ostracized from her community and family as recently as 50 years ago if she was pregnant out of wedlock-Hence, the abortion deaths. Women were desparate to get rid of unwanted pregnancies becasue it REALLY made a difference back then. Now it is totally acceptable to live with someone and it is fairly common for people to walk down the aisle in a white wedding dress when they are 6 months pregnant.No one blinks an eye.

And even in the conservative Christain community I know many kids of parishoners people who have lived together before marriage or had a baby without getting married.It is not acceptable behavior in my church-it's looked down on but no one has gotten kicked out over it in my church at least.Anotehr church might do that. In one case,the girl could not have a baby shower in the church becasue it would appear to be a celebration of her disobedience to God; however, once the baby was born the shower was held as a celebration of new life, even though the mom refused to get married to her live- in boyfriend.Things are much more permisssble now and gay behavior is also becoming much more accepted.

There will always be Matthew Shephards just like there will always be Laci Peterson's and Lori Hackingsnd Chandra Levys-evil exists but in most places you do not have to fear retribution for being gay. There have been no wide spread protests about gay marriage-it willbe legal and accepted.

Thrizzle,I actually really likedthe show Sex in the City and those girls were in and out of guys beds all the time.

I think that any permiscuous behavior is bad for straight OR gay people. Aside from the fact that it is risky as far as herpes and AIDS, and other STDs go,it is demeaning to people and reduces the behavior to the animal level. But that is just me.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Lynn7

And even in the conservative Christain community I know many kids of parishoners people who have lived together before marriage or had a baby without getting married.It is not acceptable behavior in my church-it's looked down on but no one has gotten kicked out over it in my church at least.Anotehr church might do that. In one case,the girl could not have a baby shower in the church becasue it would appear to be a celebration of her disobedience to God; however, once the baby was born the shower was held as a celebration of new life, even though the mom refused to get married to her live- in boyfriend.Things are much more permisssble now and gay behavior is also becoming much more accepted.



Thrizzle,I actually really likedthe show Sex in the City and those girls were in and out of guys beds all the time.




This reminds me of something Bono said in regards to the late artist Wojnarowicz. "You know, if Freud was even half-right, if sex is even close to the center of our lives, how is it that we leave it to pornographers and dum-dum guys? We leave the subject to them, and it's reduced to titillation in the cinema, to these kind of half-baked plots. "

You can't say they were bedhopping all the time. Just everytime "they were filmed". Its TV, obviously the time frame is screwed, especially in a show that has 13 episodes a season, time is compacted. I saw Coupling and a complete pregnancy there went the span of 6 episodes. You are focusing far too much on the sex that you are becoming as obsessed about sex as the media because they have turned it into cheap titilation and therefore have made others look at sex as such a thing.


You know its both the media and the church that have twisted sex into two things it is not: Cheap titilation and an obscene act. Its either Justin Timberlake whipping Janet Jackson's tit out or the Catholic church stating that any sex that is enjoyed, in and out of marriage, and not engaged in to result in a pregnancy, is evil. That's how we're taught about sex. Its no wonder kids are getting pregnant. Sex is either treated as a harmless toy or the end all be all of your motal soul. Neither are healthy.

You point out Sex and the City and only point out the sex, but neglect to mention that the show presented the consequences of those acts. It wasn't porn which is all about the mechanics of the act, but about the dynamics of relating to other people. I often joke that before I dated I thought the show was just funny, then I started to date and realized show was funny because it was true.

You're just as obsessed about sex as our culture is, and only about the sex, much like Dan Quayle was obsessed about Murphy Brown's pregnancy. I've had this discussion once before with a religious, conservative Republican and his explanation of Dan Quayle's agenda with Murphy Brown was that since we have a problem with teen pregnancy, which leads to more people sucking on the tit of public welfare, it would not be safe to have young girls have this character as some sort of role model.
But what he neglected to bring into his assesment is 1.) Young teenagers don't watch Murphy Brown, and most importantly if they did 2.) Why would they only follow that example? Murphy Brown was an articulate, highly-educated, successful and well paid public news figure, but somehow all her accomplishments were overshadowed by being knocked up. But if kids watched her why would they completely overlook her success and just focus in on her pregnancy.

I agree, we are an over sexed culture, and only seem to be interested in the two extremes and cannot seem to focus in on the middle ground. I agree, promiscuity in this day and age is not safe, and young people need to be taught that , but it seems the only avenues that are willing to teach them are the two extremes I just mentioned. Just teaching abstinence in schools and saying that is enough is like saying "We're only going to teach one subject in schools cause we've decided that's all they need." Not every kid is Jessica Simpson and is saving themselves unless they're planning on getting married early. Most of the kids who pledged that they were going to wait until marriage to have sex ended up contracting STD's at the same rate as people who didn't make the pledge.

And I know you'll say that you don't want some stranger teaching your kids about sex, but then most parents become stuttering fools when it comes to discussing the matter with their kids. So who is gonna tell them? The church has its agenda and then there is the TV. And we're back to the two extremes. And we're just talking about straight sex, who the hell teaches gay kids about sex? So far all they have is porn, Queer As Folk and experimentation.

[BubbaStrangelove]

Originally posted by Lynn7
What do you doubt? The kid who said it is becoming cool to be gay? The schools are teaching acceptance of people who are different, so the fact it is becoming acceptable or even cool is not unbelievable \



Lynn, come back to Spaceship Earth -- Since when have things that are taught in school been considered "cool"?

[Lynn7]

__________________________________________________ _
You can't say they were bedhopping all the time. Just everytime "they were filmed". Its TV, obviously the time frame is screwed, especially in a show that has 13 episodes a season, time is compacted. I saw Coupling and a complete pregnancy there went the span of 6 episodes. __________________________________________________ _



The characters, with the exception of Charlotte, would often have sex with a guy they had just met and then they might never see the guy again. That is bed-hopping to me. They laughed about Samantha’s lifestyle-I know she wasn’t presented as the norm but she was not presented as pathetic.


________________________________________________
You are focusing far too much on the sex that you are becoming as obsessed about sex as the media because they have turned it into cheap titilation and therefore have made others look at sex as such a thing.
__________________________________________________


I am not obsessed with sex- I’m simply having a discussion about it.


_________________________________________________
You know its both the media and the church that have twisted sex into two things it is not: Cheap titilation and an obscene act. Its either Justin Timberlake whipping Janet Jackson's tit out or the Catholic church stating that any sex that is enjoyed, in and out of marriage, and not engaged in to result in a pregnancy, is evil. That's how we're taught about sex. Its no wonder kids are getting pregnant. Sex is either treated as a harmless toy or the end all be all of your motal soul. Neither are healthy.
________________________________________________

I don’t know of any church that teaches that about sex. That was true in the far past. We are taught that sex is great and is to be enjoyed within marriage. The bibledeosn't asy anything negative about sex within marriage-how about the statement by God to be fruitful and multiply? Marriage is meant to protect us. There are so many people who now have 3 kids with 3 different guys and how many cases do you hear of where the mother’s current boyfriend molests or beats the crap out of one of her kids? Or even murders the kid? Marriage is meant to provide a safe and stable environment where kids can be loved by both parents. Sex within marriage is not a punishment-it is a safety measure.


__________________________________________________
You're just as obsessed about sex as our culture is, and only about the sex, much like Dan Quayle was obsessed about Murphy Brown's pregnancy. I've had this discussion once before with a religious, conservative Republican and his explanation of Dan Quayle's agenda with Murphy Brown was that since we have a problem with teen pregnancy, which leads to more people sucking on the tit of public welfare, it would not be safe to have young girls have this character as some sort of role model.
But what he neglected to bring into his assesment is 1.) Young teenagers don't watch Murphy Brown, and most importantly if they did 2.) Why would they only follow that example? Murphy Brown was an articulate, highly-educated, successful and well paid public news figure, but somehow all her accomplishments were overshadowed by being knocked up. But if kids watched her why would they completely overlook her success and just focus in on her pregnancy.
______________________________________________-



TV shows do normalize behavior. If parents teach their kids that sex outside marriage is wrong but the kids see all the characters on TV having sex outside marriage (Friends, for example) or having a baby without needing to get married (Murphy Brown) then they begin to think everyone else is doing it-my parent’s must be weird. It s not about role models its about normalizing behavior.


_________________________________________________
I agree, we are an over sexed culture, and only seem to be interested in the two extremes and cannot seem to focus in on the middle ground. I agree, promiscuity in this day and age is not safe, and young people need to be taught that , but it seems the only avenues that are willing to teach them are the two extremes I just mentioned. Just teaching abstinence in schools and saying that is enough is like saying "We're only going to teach one subject in schools cause we've decided that's all they need."
________________________________________________


Promiscuous sex can lead to
1) fatal or incurable diseases
2) pregnancy, leading to a life of poverty or to an abortion
3) an intensity in a relationship that young teens are just not ready for.


If you teach teens that speeding while you drive can lead to injury or death to themselves or others, would you then tell kids how to do it safely? “Kids, if you are going to speed make sure to wear a helmet and that everyone in your car is wearing a seat belt!”

The truth is that there is no birth control that is 100% effective and no condom can give 100% assurance against AIDs or other bacteria or viruses. Condoms, in fact are the poorest form of birth control so why would you want to rely on them to protect against AIDS? It is smart to teach abstinence and to teach why it is smart.

__________________________________________________ __
And I know you'll say that you don't want some stranger teaching your kids about sex,
_______________________________________________-

I don’t want some stranger teaching my kids about sex. :)

Actually, I have allowed my kids to learn about sex in school but only after I went into the school personally to see what the curriculum was and then I made sure to talk about it to them afterwards.


__________________________________________________ _
but then most parents become stuttering fools when it comes to discussing the matter with their kids. So who is gonna tell them? The church has its agenda and then there is the TV. And we're back to the two extremes. And we're just talking about straight sex, who the hell teaches gay kids about sex? So far all they have is porn, Queer As Folk and experimentation.
_________________________________________________

I am not averse to having sex education available for kids whose parents want to permit them to take it. The parents should always have the final say over their kids’ education. As far as gay kids go, those kids are vulnerable since they might not know anyone else who is gay so they might fall into the wrong hands when they begin to enter into the gay lifestyle-this is something that the gay community needs to address.


Bubba,
I am just reporting what I heard that this 17 year old told his mother. I don’t know if the feeling at school is related to what they have been taught about tolerance or what they have watched on TV. Aren’t the guys from Queer Eye considered cool? Isn’t Elton John considered cool? Rosie was cool for at least a time. Rupert Everett is also cool. Why would it be so unusual for gay kids at the high school to be considered cool?

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Lynn7

I don’t know of any church that teaches that about sex. That was true in the far past. We are taught that sex is great and is to be enjoyed within marriage. The bibledeosn't asy anything negative about sex within marriage-how about the statement by God to be fruitful and multiply? Marriage is meant to protect us. There are so many people who now have 3 kids with 3 different guys and how many cases do you hear of where the mother’s current boyfriend molests or beats the crap out of one of her kids? Or even murders the kid? Marriage is meant to provide a safe and stable environment where kids can be loved by both parents. Sex within marriage is not a punishment-it is a safety measure.

I didn't say marriage was a punishment. And its St. Augustine who wrote those rules about sex. And sex within marriage is only as safe as those who observe fidelity. Married women are becoming tha fastest growing demographic to be diagnosed with AIDS.




Originally posted by Lynn7

Promiscuous sex can lead to
1) fatal or incurable diseases
2) pregnancy, leading to a life of poverty or to an abortion
3) an intensity in a relationship that young teens are just not ready for.


If you teach teens that speeding while you drive can lead to injury or death to themselves or others, would you then tell kids how to do it safely? “Kids, if you are going to speed make sure to wear a helmet and that everyone in your car is wearing a seat belt!”

The truth is that there is no birth control that is 100% effective and no condom can give 100% assurance against AIDs or other bacteria or viruses. Condoms, in fact are the poorest form of birth control so why would you want to rely on them to protect against AIDS? It is smart to teach abstinence and to teach why it is smart.

It is smart to teach it, but it is dumb to think that all the kids you teach only abstinence to are all going to adhere to it till they are married. Crossing your fingers and hoping they do is not adequate education. Not every child is gonna get married at 18 or 20. A certain percentage are going to have sex.

When your children go out into the world you teach them how to cross the street, to look both ways, to watch out for strangers, how to drive properly and SAFELY. You don't keep them indoors all day because the world is unsafe and you don't keep them from learning how to drive because car accidents happen. You teach them how to operate in the world and keep safe at the same time. We prepare them as best we can for whatever situation they may come across in life.

Abstinence is 100% safe, as long as its practiced. But when it isn't then kids need to be taught how to keep themselves as safe as they possibly can. Because as "weak" as the condom is, its a lot safer then bareback.

And you're not teaching them this stuff so they can learn to be promiscuous. You teach them so that when they do decide to have sex within a relationship that doesn't happen to be marriage then they know how their bodies work without learning misinformation from the TV. A lot of sex education is about teaching girls and boys how their respective bodies work. Otherwise you get boys who go out into the world thinking pre-cum is just sweat.

I'd rather send kids out well informed with options then sending them out into the world with only one choice and just hope they follow through.

[countchocula]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Bubba,
I am just reporting what I heard that this 17 year old told his mother. I don’t know if the feeling at school is related to what they have been taught about tolerance or what they have watched on TV. Aren’t the guys from Queer Eye considered cool? Isn’t Elton John considered cool? Rosie was cool for at least a time. Rupert Everett is also cool. Why would it be so unusual for gay kids at the high school to be considered cool?

Wow...you have NO IDEA what you're talking about. I'll make a wild assumption that you didn't graduate high school just yesterday. I had a bisexual friend in High School, and aside from a small clique of open-minded people, everyone looked down on her. The popular girls had a blast deriding her (behind her back no less). Most students feel uneasy around those that they don't understand; others simply don't care. Maybe (hopefully) it's different up North.

Wait a minute. Pre-cum isn't sweat???????? :D

[Lynn7]

I'm sure that it is different where I live than from where you are from but I dont' remember hearing that peoplefrom you rstate were boycotting Will and Grace or Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. The times are changing.

[Thrizzle]

Yea times are changing, no one denies that. But that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Homosexuality appears to be pre-wired into humans, and not "choice". A few TV shows wont coerce people into becoming gay.

[Lynn7]

I don't beleive more people will become"gay". I'm just saying that sex is becoming thought of as more recreational as opposed to something associated with marriage and babies so there are less constrictions and people have been participating in sex that is less "traditional."

[Jim H]

It is smart to teach abstinence and to teach why it is smart.

Better yet, teach that form of sex which is 100% safe from STDs and pregnancy. Two words, and they both start with M...

:p

[EVILxxx]

If people are worried about the sanctity of marriage this is what I propose... with a series of statutes make civil unions the same as marriage in terms of benifiets, then anyone who is not religious and does not want to get married in a church can get a civil union. Anyone who wishes to get married in a church will. This may seem unlikely and I'm sure in about 6-8 years time marriage will be both gay and straight but this is my solution.

[Lynn7]

I know it's just word play but I like it. The problem lies mostly in the religious realm so that sounds like it could work.

[DRbeauty]

Originally posted by EVILxxx
If people are worried about the sanctity of marriage this is what I propose... with a series of statutes make civil unions the same as marriage in terms of benifiets, then anyone who is not religious and does not want to get married in a church can get a civil union. Anyone who wishes to get married in a church will. This may seem unlikely and I'm sure in about 6-8 years time marriage will be both gay and straight but this is my solution.

Yeah but what about all the non religious people who don't believe that "marriage" is about religion. They won't like the civil union part.

[Jim H]

Originally posted by DRbeauty
Yeah but what about all the non religious people who don't believe that "marriage" is about religion. They won't like the civil union part.

What difference does it make? They'll still be able to get married however the hell they want, they just get proof of union instead of a marriage certificate.

[DRbeauty]

Originally posted by Jim H
What difference does it make? They'll still be able to get married however the hell they want, they just get proof of union instead of a marriage certificate.

The difference is that I don't see them accepting the civil union part. The want be be MARRIED. It's not a marriage if they don't have a marriage certificate.

[EVILxxx]

Well marriage was a religious thing before the government had it's say. Why should religion bend?

[Jim H]

Originally posted by DRbeauty
The difference is that I don't see them accepting the civil union part. The want be be MARRIED. It's not a marriage if they don't have a marriage certificate.

Why not? You're married if you two claim to be married. Why is a piece of paper required?

Well marriage was a religious thing before the government had it's say. Why should religion bend?

Before it was religious, it was secular. You can't really claim it as religious in origin.

[Lynn7]

I'd classify Adam and Eve as religious. ;)

[Jim H]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I'd classify Adam and Eve as religious. ;)

The concept of a bond between a man/men/woman/women and a man//menwoman/women predates the bible. ;)

[SLAW]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I'd classify Adam and Eve as religious. ;)

It seems that everything you see is religious. :rolleyes: It's true. Please don't try and explain it to me like I'm supposed to understand. The way you think (not just you ofcourse, but conservative and religious ideology in genreal) makes no sense to me and I've tried to "get" why, but cannot.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by SLAW
It seems that everything you see is religious. :rolleyes: It's true. Please don't try and explain it to me like I'm supposed to understand. The way you think (not just you ofcourse, but conservative and religious ideology in genreal) makes no sense to me and I've tried to "get" why, but cannot.

That is very astute of you- it is true that my beliefs influence every aspect of how I see the world, especially in politics. I do not TALK about religion all the time ( I do talk about movies, books, TV, politics,celebs-I subscribe to Entertainment Weekly and People-and love talk radio). Sometimes as I contemplate people and things I place them into perspective, by using my religion as a guideline.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Jim H
The concept of a bond between a man/men/woman/women and a man//menwoman/women predates the bible. ;)

Well if you discount the bible as true then it would be easy to say that men and women predated the bible since the bible would be fictional, but if one believes the bible he/she would have to say that Adam and Eve were here first. As you know we (Christians who beleive in the bible's truth) do not believe in evolution. I think it is harder to believe in evolution than it is to believe in creation, but the theory provided an alternative explanation for those who did not wish to believe in God. That (evolutionary)belief system makes no sense to me whatsoever so I can sympathize with those who don't understand the Christian belief system.

[SLAW]

Originally posted by Lynn7
That is very astute of you- it is true that my beliefs influence every aspect of how I see the world, especially in politics. I do not TALK about religion all the time ( I do talk about movies, books, TV, politics,celebs-I subscribe to Entertainment Weekly and People-and love talk radio). Sometimes as I contemplate people and things I place them into perspective, by using my religion as a guideline.

Damm, I was in kind of a bitchy mood last night, sorry. Of course you don't just talk about religion, but I was just saying that I personally can never see where you're coming from. Obviously many many many people think like you do, so it's not personal.

[Jim H]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Well if you discount the bible as true then it would be easy to say that men and women predated the bible since the bible would be fictional, but if one believes the bible he/she would have to say that Adam and Eve were here first. As you know we (Christians who beleive in the bible's truth) do not believe in evolution.

I here some people who think a lot of the old testament isn't meant to be taken literally. Personally, I find it impossible to take literally, or seriously for that matter, but whatever.

As far as evolution... It sounds to me like you just have a problem with the current scientific origin of life bit, which is seperate from evolution.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Jim H
I here some people who think a lot of the old testament isn't meant to be taken literally. Personally, I find it impossible to take literally, or seriously for that matter, but whatever.

As far as evolution... It sounds to me like you just have a problem with the current scientific origin of life bit, which is seperate from evolution.

I used to think like that too but when I began to take the Old Testament literally (except for the things that are meant to be taken figuratively) the whole bible made absolute sense.It is when peoplereduce certain stories to fables that everything becomes hazy.

As far as the scientific origin of life, if I'm understanding you right, I can buy the big bang theory in that God said that he brought it all into being WHACK! so maybe I can buy the big bang-however when I think of how we are evolved from single cell organisms I can't get there. For each part of the body to work, it involves so many different complex parts that must be coordinated. In the eye, how would the eye know it would need to have a retina, rods,cones etc and then need to be connected to a nervous system which by the way must be connected to a brain which is exceedingly complex. There must be a designer at work to create such complex organisms-there is something intelligent at work here. Cells would not have that capacity to know how to create or what to create. Where would the cells get the intelligence? Unless this issue was cleared up I could never get to point B.

And as I've said before, Science is not all that old. I have a hard time accepting the authority of a discipline that was so rudimental even one hundred years ago that now claims to have such breadth of knowledge on so many different topics. I am a cynic for sure.

[Raymond Babbit]

Originally posted by Lynn7

In the eye, how would the eye know it would need to have a retina, rods,cones etc and then need to be connected to a nervous system which by the way must be connected to a brain which is exceedingly complex. There must be a designer at work to create such complex organisms-there is something intelligent at work here. Cells would not have that capacity to know how to create or what to create. Where would the cells get the intelligence? Unless this issue was cleared up I could never get to point B.

That's the thing, it doesn't know . It's not a concious choice. An organism doesn't just say, I'm gonna evolve now. It's adaptations made by nature, passed along slowly among generations, to help the organism better adapt. It all plays into natural selection. And by the way, genetics in a way is a form of evolution, with heredity and everything, so if you discount evolution, you have to discount genetics too.

[Thrizzle]

Originally posted by Lynn7
however when I think of how we are evolved from single cell organisms I can't get there. For each part of the body to work, it involves so many different complex parts that must be coordinated. In the eye, how would the eye know it would need to have a retina, rods,cones etc and then need to be connected to a nervous system which by the way must be connected to a brain which is exceedingly complex.

You have to remember it's 6 BILLION years of evolution, and we're only recently beginning to understand parts of it.

[Jim H]

In the eye, how would the eye know it would need to have a retina, rods,cones etc and then need to be connected to a nervous system which by the way must be connected to a brain which is exceedingly complex.

The eye didn't evolve from nothing. No structure evolves that way. Likely, something like a tiny spot that detected light, in some way and of some kind, was the first step in an extremely, extremely, long process.

Cells would not have that capacity to know how to create or what to create. Where would the cells get the intelligence?

Cells can't create in the way you are describing it. They just randomly mutate until one is malformed in some way that is advantageous. For instance, having some method of detecting if it is getting too hot and should move, etc. It is difficult to imagine such a thing happening by chance for many people, but the time frame we're talking about is enormous. There's a reason life exists for a billion years without much of interest to most people. As soon as multicellular life begins (which probably began as colonies of independant single celled life forms banded together for protection or mutual interest - pretty much how multicellular life forms still function, point in fact), it proceeds much much faster

And as I've said before, Science is not all that old. I have a hard time accepting the authority of a discipline that was so rudimental even one hundred years ago that now claims to have such breadth of knowledge on so many different topics. I am a cynic for sure.

How do you define rudimentary? I guess it really depends on what aspect of science you're looking at, as well. Some aspects of science are still rudimentary, I would say others have been established for thousands of years.

[Lynn7]

The problem is that there is design in humans. Everything is so absolutely complex and interconnected.It is inconcievable to me how these cells just generally mutated into such highly defined organisms. And as the cells are mutating don't they die and then have to start over again? Say some cells made some favorable mutations and fell into a chance development that started a conein an eye to form-that would die and then the cells would have to start all over again and accidentaly mutate again(maybe this time it would try to evolve into a heart pacemaker?) It's all so silly to me.

It is so easy to imagine a creator who has designed us intricately and beautifully-the same designer who made this world so beautiful that it inspires artists and poets.

I think you need to have a lot more faith to believe in the millions of leaps of chance involved in evolution than you do to beleive that there is a God who creates life.

[Jim H]

Originally posted by Lynn7
The problem is that there is design in humans. Everything is so absolutely complex and interconnected.It is inconcievable to me how these cells just generally mutated into such highly defined organisms. And as the cells are mutating don't they die and then have to start over again? Say some cells made some favorable mutations and fell into a chance development that started a conein an eye to form-that would die and then the cells would have to start all over again and accidentaly mutate again(maybe this time it would try to evolve into a heart pacemaker?) It's all so silly to me.

It is so easy to imagine a creator who has designed us intricately and beautifully-the same designer who made this world so beautiful that it inspires artists and poets.

I think you need to have a lot more faith to believe in the millions of leaps of chance involved in evolution than you do to beleive that there is a God who creates life.

Well, of course you do. You hardly have an objective point of view. I can't say I do either. The natural beauty bit is ridiculous to me, as if we grew up in a world consisting entirely of urban decay, we'd write poems about its beauty. It's entirely relative.

As far as intricate design... Why do we have vestigial organs? We can toss out each other's side's cliches all day long, I think.

And as the cells are mutating don't they die and then have to start over again?

No. Their descendants can inheirit the mutation. It won't immediately become something every new cell is born with, generally, however. But if 1/10 is, and it is an advantage, eventually nearly all of them will have the change as the stronger ones survive. It is also possible that both new strains will survive (something a lot of creationists seem to have trouble with, bringing up the idiotic argument "If we're descended from apes, why do apes still exist?").

Say some cells made some favorable mutations and fell into a chance development that started a conein an eye to form-that would die and then the cells would have to start all over again and accidentaly mutate again(maybe this time it would try to evolve into a heart pacemaker?) It's all so silly to me.

No. Their descendants, if this trait was an advantage, could still carry the mutation. And cells don't "try" to do anything. It's accidental. BTW, you should remember evolution has been observed. It's a major problem how bacteria are becoming immune to a lot of the things that use to kill them - many old antibiotics are now useless.

And anyways, it doesn't sound more silly than a magical dude in the sky who got bored and made everything, all the while following the template of creation myths of every religion before and since.

[Lynn7]

The bacteria issue is becasue people do not finish taking all their antibiotics-they stop taking them when they begin to feel better, but before the bacteria have all been killed, allowing the more resistant ones to survive and reproduce-that is not mutation-it's survival of the fittest.

Again, for a bunch of cells to accidentally mutate into what we are is impossible for me to beleive. You say I am not objective but I had serious trouble beleiving in this stuff before I ever began studying the bible. It did not make any sense. When I began studying the bibleall these things finally became clear to me.

I do not beleive we would praise squalor even if that was all we had ever known. If that was true people who grew up in it would think it was beautiful but they do not. When they see the mountains and the ocean and the flowers and the stars, they recognize their beauty. Look at the delicate colors in aflower- it lokks like an artist took a paintbrush to it. How about the stripes of a Zebra or the colorings on the fish of the ocean? All artistic creations. The way that the solar system is so perfectly timed and the atmosphere is exactly right for our survival. So many evidences of a creator all around us.

[Jim H]

that is not mutation-it's survival of the fittest.

They're the fittest because they've become different than others. If there was no mutation, bacteria wouldn't change. There is no evolution on a single cell, it doesn't get hit by the antibiotic, survive it, then grow stronger based on experience. There are millions of them, a few dozen are slightly different in some way, and by luck that difference allows them to live. They are different because of mutations. The same thing has happened to numerous insects who become immune to insecticides. In some cases, the mutation is otherwise a disadvantage (I remember one pest had a deficiency in its breathing that let it survive some kinds of gas).

You can't seperate mutation, evolution and survival of the fittest. Survival of the fittest/natural selection is the mechanism by which evolution takes place. If something dies because it is less fit for its environment than another, evolution has taken place. Life varies widely in its traits because of mutation, sometimes they're different without advantage, and sometimes differences aren't immediately an advantage (genetic diversity, of course, is an advantage in and of itself).

When they see the mountains and the ocean and the flowers and the stars, they recognize their beauty.

There is no objective beauty. Not everyone sees the non-human world and thinks it is beautiful.

The way that the solar system is so perfectly timed and the atmosphere is exactly right for our survival.

It's also perfect evidence for evolution, since we would be evolved for the atmosphere we have. There is no reason to think a very different atmosphere couldn't support very different life.

[MacReady]

Lynn, I understand the fact that it's hard to believe a single cell suddenly (and very slowly) evolved into what we are today, but look at it from this point of view:

Massive radiation can cause harmful cell mutations resutling in cancer. Now, the sun, which also produces radiation itself (I mean, you can get skin cancer from overexposure to it), is incredibly old and has been around since before there was life on earth. Now it is my theory that the sun gave enough minor radiation to all the lifeforms on earth to the point where the started to mutate (or evolve) into to more complex lifeforms. I think it's possible that this solar energy caused cells to alter, slowly and slowly with each generation. I believe it caused life on earth to adapt to solar energy and thus grow organs that would help them out (like eyes for instance).

Also, keep in mind cockroaches, when exposed to certain poisons, sometimes survive the ordeal. When they do, they grow an immunity to that poison, not to mention it's able to pass on those genes to it's offspring. Now, this didn't happen because god simply willed them to survive the poison, it happened because an organism was exposed to a certain substance or energy and at first was weakened by it, has now become invulenrable to it and thus, a superior species than it was originally. This is sorta the same idea presented with evolution, only it takes millions of years and it's done to become stronger even thought the source of the change isn't really hurting it, only to helping it get an advantage over enemies.

My theory might sound preposterous, but I don't see how it's more silly than the idea there's an invisible man in the sky with superpowers that magically invented a planet that's made up of trillions, upon trillions, upon trillions of tons, animals that are as advanced as we are, or eels that can produce electiricity naturaly (not an easy feat to be certain) and many sources of energy as well as building a near infinite atoms all in the space of a week. Speaking of the bible, I've found a chink in Lynn's arguement (several, actually):

Lynn suggestion that it dosen't make senses for something complex to just build itself on it's own without somebody to make it in the first. This reminds of an arguement a Muslim on TV trying to premote his religi