Caine

[QUOTE=Gavin][SIZE=1] As I've said earlier in the thread, the way the world is becoming such a secular place with no time for spirituality is something that genuinely concerns me, now whether that spirituality be Catholic, Protestant, Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim or any other religion doesn't matter, but I feel people are losing touch with the fact that there is something far greater out there than any of us and people are beginning to forget that. Which is why I feel spirituality of some description is important for people, and perhaps I've let that cloud my opinion on this issue. I think it's a case that my beliefs are such an integral part of me, and so bound to the history of Ireland by blood, that it's very difficult to look at any issue from a purely secular point of view.[/SIZE] You aren't the only one who struggles with the lack of spirituality in this world. It is sad, but as far as I've seen the best way to spread spirituality is to preach to those who are open to it and set an example for all. If you become a priest (we certainly could use more). You can't spread it by force or argument, only by example and talking to those who are open to it. I know you appologize for how harsh you were, but if anybody should be appologizing, it isn't you. We weren't all that respectful of you sometimes, and you handled it better than I would have. (not that that's saying a whole lot) [SIZE=1]Well I was talking about it from a Catholic point of view, by which anyone can seek forgiveness for sins by going to Confession, so actually seeking redemption is something anyone can do if they believe. You're right of course in the fact I've been sounding like a dogmatic evangelist rather than a concerned future-priest, at least hopefully future-priest, although I believe a friend may be right when she says I am too rigid in my application of beliefs. [/SIZE][/QUOTE] 1) how long until you enter the seminary, how long before you become a deacon, how long until you become a priest? If there's anything you think is wrong with your application of beliefs, that's a lot of time with some good examples of how to be better. 2) Good luck with whatever you do, whether you want to be a priest or not.

[quote name='Gavin][SIZE=1']Alex, do me a favour, if you're going to be discourteous enough to basically label my opinions as being stupid, then at least do me the courtesy of reading the actual reply in terms of the context. That post was in response PaganAngel's question about why God would punish someone for being homosexual, basically he asked me to answer a religious question, or rather to give the reason the Catholic Church has given as to why God considers homosexuality a sin. [/SIZE][/quote] 1) You actually haven't told us why homosexuality is a sin. You've told us why it's not hypocritical to call it a sin, but as for the actual reasoning of why it is one, you've never given that. 2)Keep in mind what you say here about people labeling you. [QUOTE]Do I want someone to suppress who they really are, at the core of their being ? No, probably not, but if what?s at their core is something that puts their immortal soul, regardless of whether they believe it?s there or not, in jeopardy then I most certainly do want them to suppress it, or to deal with it in such a way that that piece of their core being no longer exists. As I?ve said already I?m not trying to oppress anyone else, I?m merely giving my reasons for why I think this kind of behaviour isn?t right, that?s not going to stop anyone from doing so, no more than it should because people need to make their own decisions in life, because that?s what life is. But it does concern me greatly that the world today has become such a spiritually devoid place, where this tiny, tiny span of life is all that matters, as opposed to the infinity of the hereafter. [/QUOTE] 1) Let me get this straight. Yous just said, "No I don't want to suppress part of them, but I do want to to supress part of them." Is that pretty much what you said? 2) Should we pass a laww oultawing Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Athiesm, Paganism, Agnosticism, and Protestantism because that would keep people's souls safe? [QUOTE][SIZE=1]I haven?t said that I want to oppress anyone else?s rights, except sarcastically of course but that wasn?t picked up upon. What I have said is please at least allow my right to protest something I consider wrong, after all it not the vaunted American ideal of freedom of speech based on the idea that anyone should be allowed say anything they feel like, regardless of how offensive of hurtful it may be to someone else. I?m sorry to sound frustrated, but being one of the few on this side of the issue means you have a lot of flack to deal with.[/SIZE][/QUOTE] Please make any sarcasm painfully obvious (try [/sarcasm]) because there are people who hold the views you expressed sarcastically. You every right to say what you want, but so do we. If we don;t like what you say, tough for us, but by that same token, if you don't like what we say, tough. [QUOTE][SIZE=1]Secondly they?re not my morals, because by saying that you?re talking as if I?m the only person, one out of six and a bit billion people who wants to deny gay people their right to get married. They?re the morals of anyone who follows the tenets of the Catholic Church properly, which is somewhere in the one billion mark, and I?m not even counting members of other religions who feel the same way. Now I?ve already said from a legal standpoint only I don?t care if they get married or not, they?re only condemning themselves to an eternity to hellish torture, but seeing as religious beliefs that aren?t in line with giving gay people their liberty to marriage don?t seem to matter, I won?t continue.[/SIZE] [/QUOTE] Semantics: If they are morals that you hold, then they are your morals. Actual Debate: Does it strike you as odd that you said "anyone who follows the tenets of the Catholic Church" and not "anyone who follows the teachings of Christ" [QUOTE]As for the cost of the building the Vatican itself, well I?ve actually been in the Vatican and I can tell you that if those splendid building to the glory of God is where some of my donations went, or rather the donations of my family generations upon generations ago went, it was money well spent. However the fact is the Catholic Church does give considerable sums to the poor in impoverished countries, most of which have Catholic missionaries already out there, unless of course you?re saying that the Church should donate all it?s money, including that needed to refurbish other churches across the world and keep their priests in some form of habitation directly to the poor then that?s a different matter.[/QUOTE] I think we should follow the example of Christ and feed the Pope simple meals and give him a simple but adequate house. Render unto God what is God's and render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's. If artists donate work, that's one thing, but most of the Vatican was payed for. When Jesus sent forth the 72, what did they bring? The apostles "left everything" to follow Jesus. Should we praise God through wealth and greed or through good works, charity, and helping our fellow man? [QUOTE][SIZE=1] Would you allow a child to steal if you knew they?d face punishment, serious punishment ? No you wouldn?t, why ? Because you would feel obliged to prevent the child from being punished, but why ? Because you would feel distressed to see someone do something they would be punished for even if they didn?t know it was wrong, or as the case is here if we?re to compare the two, if someone tells them it?s wrong and they don?t believe it. I don?t want anyone to go to Hell, not the man who murders a child in cold blood, or the person who commits genocide, why ? Because I believe in redemption, and genuinely I?m easily distressed at someone else?s pain. The case is that this liberty being made into law will further jeopardise people?s souls, I know Christ did not force his message to those who did not want to hear it, because he knew people need to make their own choices, but perhaps Christ was able to sleep better at night than I would be able to, knowing someone is going to Hell for what they?ve done.[/SIZE] [/QUOTE] Are you caliming to know better than Jesus did? That is honestly what it sounds like you are saying, that Jesus was wrong to not force people to conform and that you know better and should correct his mistake. [QUOTE][SIZE=1]Anyway this issue is really debated to the end of it?s point, that is unless someone would like to start discussing the validity of religious beliefs in Republican law-making policy in the United States. The case remains that many people are for gay marriage while others are not, at this point all we can do is agree to disagree.[/SIZE][/QUOTE] How'd you know what my favorite topic was? My view is that the early disciples were communists or socialists, so why should the right claim to be religious while deriding the system used by the founders of their religion. Jesus preached of kindness to the poor, so how can they oppose being good to the poor? That's just how I see it though. I also think they might want to read that passage about "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle than it is for a rich man to enter The Kingdom"

I think we are discussing the Christian viewpoint because the main thrust behind the amendment comes form the "religious right" which in America means Christians, mainly fundamentalists.

[QUOTE=Miss Anonymous]There are a lot of issues I would like to address, and I most likely will not remember all of them. But I please ask that you respect my beliefs as a Christian, and my right as a human being to have them. And also, please read the entire post before quoting me in righteous anger. I'd really like it if we could be a bit more civilised towards each other. And now, onto some other topics. People who aren't Christian, Islam, Muslim, Buddhist, and so on, seem to assume things about Christian beliefs. I'd like to request that you please not group us all after seeing or hearing of one bad example. That tends to lead to oppression, in [i]any[/i] case, not just religious.[/QUOTE] I don't believe I've seen anyone here say anything at all about Christians being wrong. I've insinuated that we've screwed up the teachings of Jesus, but that comes from a lot of things, not one example of one person's actions. [QUOTE]And honestly, I think many of you have missed Gavin's points. He is expressing his views and beliefs on this topic. Even if you do think he's saying horrible things, and not being open-minded, you in fact are doing close to, if not the same, thing when automatically labelling him off as a bad person, because you don't see eye-to-eye. You don't personally know Gavin, and as far as you know he has done nothing outrageous other than state what he believes. I don't know if you know this, but it takes a lot of courage to say what one believes to a crowd that doesn't want to hear it. I applaud you Gavin, even if no one else does.[/QUOTE] I have no problem with Gavin as a person. I don't believe anyone else here who posts extensively has given me much reason to assume that they do either. He should speak his mind, and we should speak ours. We should try to be civilized about it, but I don't think there's anything wrong with open debate. [QUOTE]If I'm sounding like I'm preaching right now, I apologize. I have no right to, for I am also sinful. Everyone has that right to choose their beliefs, religion or lack of, and whatnot. I am just hoping that some of you will truly read this with an open heart, and not immediately right me off as another stupid right-wing Conservative; but as someone who is trying to express the basics of her religion, which is what leads me in my decisions, whether the government deems it as right or not.[/QUOTE] NO! We're all sinful, yes, but we still should try to do what we think is right. If that's what you truly believe, then say it. We should all try to be civilized, but discussion is essential. [QUOTE]Finally, I would like to ask again that everyone, not just one side but [i]everyone[/i], be as fair and open as possible. My brother recently got in an argument at his college about gay marriage. And you know what happened? A group of people swarmed on him, giving him no opportunity to say anything. For 30 minutes, he had people shouting in his face. Then one kid called him a Nazi. All the others thought that was out of line, but still. A Nazi? Because he was speaking his opinion, he was called a Nazi.[/QUOTE] People have been told they're going to burn in hell because they say what they think. Please don't judge all of us by one example, I try not to do it to you. [QUOTE] I personally don't know how that fight was even started, but the point is that we [i]should[/i] give each other the right to our own opinion, religious or not, and not be oppressed for it. Whether we actually do that or not is questionable, however. I would like to close off as apologizing for any contradictory statements in my post. Writing such a long one, I'm sure there's one in there. Again, this post is mainly my own opinion and belief. I've tried to state the basics of my religion, without preaching, hoping to have at least someone read the whole post. God loves us, one way or another, and hopefully we may begin to love one another on a better level.[/QUOTE] You say quite a lot, and I agree with you on a good deal of it, but I don't see you explicitly staing your reasons for opposing gay marriage. I don't know if this was intentional or not, I just thought I should point it out.

There are lots of things that I enjoy and that I do a lot, but I am defined by my bike. I bike everywhere, and people who can't get over the fact that I don't fear looking weird when I I'm biking (how do you think you'd look after biking through snow?). I bike for enjoyment and as transportation, my bikes are the most important things I own.

[quote name='The13thMan][FONT=Century Gothic] [COLOR=DarkOrange]I don?t think that?s a plausible argument, stating the unalienable rights. What if killing people made somebody happy? So is it alright now? Of course not, there are laws against it because we believe killing is wrong. If we believe homosexuality is wrong, we should have a law against it. [/COLOR'] [/FONT][/quote] Murder causes harm. What harrm will homosexuals marrying cause? [QUOTE][FONT=Century Gothic] [COLOR=DarkOrange]How do you know gay marriage isn?t hurting anyone? I guess it matters mostly on your religious beliefs. If gays go to hell, then yes indeed it is hurting people. Of course there?s no way to determine rather they actually go to hell or not. I personally don?t know whether they do or not. I?m just saying. [/COLOR] [/FONT][/QUOTE] that argumaent is only valid if we assume one religion is right, but the first amendment seperates church and state, so it is invalid in the US. [QUOTE][FONT=Century Gothic] [COLOR=DarkOrange]I think the first step in caring for the ?ill? in this case is raising awareness of the ?disease? to begin with, which is exactly what he?s doing. And, you ask sarcastically whether you think God will judge us based on our sexual preference or not, that?s ridiculous. There?s no way for you to know what God will say, and who?s to say both aren?t absolutely wrong and evil? Ultimately there can only be one absolutely right religion. Others can come close, but not right on. Whether God decides to punish the people who are not of the right faith is something we won?t know until He tells us. [/COLOR] [/FONT][/QUOTE] What did Jesus do? Did he stop sinners from sinning, or did he invite them to turn to him and be saved? There's a difference, and I think anyone who wishes to follow Christ has to contemplate the answers As for there only beign one right religion, not exactly. Itis quite possible that there are no right religions, and that we are all too shortsighted to even begin to see things through God's eyes. [QUOTE][FONT=Century Gothic] [COLOR=DarkOrange] Skin color is irrelevant, yes, but sexual preference is nothing like skin color. Sexual preference does matter, I believe. The way I see it, if god was alright with homosexuality there would only be one sex. Why make two sexes if one sex is all we need? Ah, but there is no way to tell what God?s thinking, we can only speculate. [/COLOR] [/FONT][/QUOTE] Please don't ask "why" about God, because I have some "why's" that nobody has answered. In this case, there are two sexes because it is a very good design. It allows for sexual reproduction for startes, which is impossible without sexes. How is sexual prefereince different from skin color? Both are affected by heredity and the environment. [quote name='Chabichou'] homosexuality is unnatural[/quote] Not really, since it is influenced and caused by genes. [QUOTE]Its time we focused on what is important.[/QUOTE] Do you mean the environment, not having a nuclear war, humanitarian efforts, eliminating AIDS, curing cancer, rebuilding New Orleans and helping others? [QUOTE]Why should a child have two mothers or two fathers? It makes no sense[/QUOTE] Would you rather the children had one parent? How about no parents? In case you didn't notice this, the difference between gay marriage and smoking is that I have to breathe in smoke from other people's cigarettes. Gay couples do not impose anything on me. [quote name='Gavin']What you have done there Ken is effectively contradict yourself, on the one hand you've said that you believe in democracy and granting people basic human rights, which is done in Ireland. While on the other, you've said that a law which would effectively only serve a tiny minority should be implemented even if the majority of the voting population would be against it[/quote] I think there are two things that you need to understand about what he said 1) the majority shouldn't have the right to deny the minority of their rights (Civil Rights Movement anyone?) 2)I don't know where the original poster is from, but here in the US we do give the minority a lot of power (filibuster, the fact that the Senate gives equal power to all states, regardless of size) [QUOTE]I was probably unclear as that my quote was intended to be somewhat sarcastic, what I was basically saying is that the level that "separation of Church and State" is being taken to the point where eventually it will become just "suppression of Church". And that's what I oppose, now please don't even bother attempting to argue the point that the liberal left if they should get all their beliefs through would even consider allowing us on the religious right our say to what we consider to be right and wrong. Despite the name, Liberals are usually as oppressive as Conservatives in the name of universalism, where by anything they think is right, regardless of how morally corrupt it is, should be made legal. If homosexual marriage is made legal, how long before polygamy gets the green light ? It's the same thing really, people who want to get married and who love one another very much. Two women and one man, three men and two women, six women and two men, six women on their own. It's all about love seemingly. The morality of it be damned, if it's legal then why not.[/QUOTE] A few things. 1) I have never heard of Liberals imposing views on oithers, please give me an ecample of liberals choosing to deny freedom or choice. The only thing that liberals tend to attack is the "right" of others to impose their morals on others. 2) Whose definition of Morality should we use? 3) Why is polygamy wrong? (Before you answer, think of some famous polygamists, and then think about why God never told them to be monogamous) [QUOTE]Alright, semantics aside, I've already said that if it's purely legal, let them off, let them get married and have the fifty percent divorce rate heterosexual couples in the U.S. enjoy. Let them have the nasty bitter divorces through the courts, let them have all the misery that comes afterwards. Just because they're allowed get married like anyone else does not mean it's going to be all sun and roses. I mean if people want to be really, really realistic here, gay couples are going to have the same one in two chance of splitting up as straight couples, it's not as if they're somehow going to all have perfect marriages just because they're now allowed get married legally. To lift a phrase from the liberal camp, gay or straight, people are still people. Caine, just by the way, Roman Catholic clergy members are called Priests, not Ministers.[/QUOTE] I know, but the general description of a priest's job is a religious minister. I was purposefully using the more legalistic term. I also know that they will get the entire marriage package, good and bad. So what? Aren't they entitled to that much? [QUOTE]I think Retri what you're referring to would be the Reformation, when acts like Simony, Nepotism and other major corruptions were cast out from the Church is favour of a more pious life. Unfortunately your "hundred year" timeline if off by a few centuries. I'll admit freely that the Church was corrupt for a long time, now however, and we're dealing with the now, it's not, which is impressive for an organisation that has 1,100,000,000, that's 1.1 billion, followers and manages gargantuan sums of money each year. I can't think of a single country/organisation with similar size and income that does as well.[/QUOTE] 1) that's the counter-reformation, the reformation was Martin Luther pointing out all of these corruptions and breaking away. 2)I believe Retri was talking about the Vatican Councils. 3) The Church is still wealthy, which it probably shouldn't be. [QUOTE]Of course the real issue here to the religious, is that gay people by breaking the will of God, who incidentally most gay people don't believe exists, are putting their mortal souls in danger. Now seeing as they don't believe in God that doesn't really matter, but for those of us that do believe in God there is that slight little niggling worry we're allowing countless people to condemn themselves to an eternity in Hell by accepting that homosexual behaviour is appropriate. I'm not persecuting anyone intentionally by denying them the right to get married, what I am trying to do is prevent them from an eternity of pain for not following the laws of God. If anyone thinks I'm being disingenuous with this statement, well there's nothing I can do to prove I'm sincere, but I should hope my reputation for being honest will convince some others.[/QUOTE] I understand what you're saying, but doesn't the fact that you have to trust that you're being honest about your intentions say something about your arguments?

[quote name='Gavin][SIZE=1']Rather straight forward isn't it ? The very fact that today being religious seems to equate you immediately with intolerance of other people and their beliefs, despite the fact that they are equally intolerant of yours is something of an oddity isn't it ? However as I have said I oppose homosexual marriage on religious ground primarily because I think it's wrong, it's funny that somehow my beliefs are automatically wrong because other people disagree with them.[/SIZE][/quote] I'm not sure I understand you here. I know many religious people. I am religious in the sense that I have a religion (Roman Catholic) and I follow it as best as I can. I know people who are more religious than I am. I do not automatically assume they are bigots. You say that it is intolerant of others for them not to follow your beliefs, and I simply do not follow this logic. [QUOTE][SIZE=1]I can understand the differences, and really what you're talking about are civil unions and marriages which in my own mind are two quite separate entities. Civil unions are government sanctioned "pairings" for the lack of a better word, having no religious segment to them. A marriage is the joining of a man and a woman together in the eyes of God in His church presided over by a member of the clergy, and is not legally recognised by the State until a marriage certificate is acquired. Those are the differences effectively, although civil unions are usually referred to as marriages. As I said giving homosexual couples the right to civil union is a different topic altogether as there is no religious segment to the joining. It is a commitment under the eyes of the State only.[/QUOTE] I don't believe it. Is the entire problem simply semantics? For the purposes of any posts I have made on this topic, "marriage" means a legal union between two people unless I explicitly state otherwise. It has nothing to do with what those people did in a church/temple/mosque/whatever. This began as a debate over the "Defense of Marriage Act" It is a US Government thing. It has nothing to do with the Church. Pope Benedict has no official say in what happens with it. It is about what you call civil unions. The Church can do as it pleases, I think this entire debate has been about the legal, state sanctioned marriages which have no relation to the ones performed by an ordained minister of the Catholic Church. [QUOTE][SIZE=1]Yes but the major problem is that people's views never change, it's always going to be divisive until one side gets enough support to simply overwhelm the other. I've always found it strange that one something that is wrong from the point of view of the religious right gets into law, the debate on it dies immediately, as if to say "It's over, you lost". As I recall one of the southern states of the U.S. rebanned abortion a while back, although it escapes me at this moment which state it was.[/QUOTE][/size] Debate may fail to change people's views, but a lack of debate doesn't even stand a chance of doing so. It was South Dakota, which despite the name is actually in the north [QUOTE]I didn't actually say that it was wrong to deny them that right, I said it would be as wrong to deny me my right to prevent the distortion of my religious beliefs and the institutions that are a part of those beliefs. There is a difference.[/SIZE][/QUOTE] ahem [quote name='Gavin][SIZE=1]Rather straight forward isn't it ? The very fact that today being religious seems to equate you immediately with intolerance of other people and their beliefs, despite the fact that they are equally intolerant of yours is something of an oddity isn't it ? However as I have said I oppose homosexual marriage on religious ground primarily because [b]I think it's wrong[/b'], it's funny that somehow my beliefs are automatically wrong because other people disagree with them.[/SIZE][/quote] Again, you mean marriage in the religious sense, and I believe the rest of us have been talking about it in the legal and state-sanctioned sense. In the US, I believe marriage is the term which is used for what you refer to as civil unions

[QUOTE=Gavin][SIZE=1]I was personally dreading when this nasty little topic would rear it's ugly head again, as all it does is prove a divisive issue between the religious right and liberal left. There is no winning either side of this debate because generally neither side will budge on their opinions, and why should they if they feel they're correct. Personally I oppose granting homosexual marriage on religious grounds, I'm a practicing Roman Catholic and so my major objections to the idea of granting a same-sex couple the right of marriage stems from the fact that I believe the institution of marriage to be a purely religious practice between two members of the opposite sex. Now while this may sound hypocritical to those who feel I'm not being "Christian" and I really do dislike it when people make those kinds of comments because they're as based in ignorance as people describing homosexuality as a curable disease, the opposition to homosexual marriage comes directly from the Holy Father himself, and was staunchly opposed by his predecessor Pope John Paul II. Again this may simply sound like a case of regurgitation, in that I'm simply repeating the line of the Church but I happen to agree wholeheartedly with the line being taken, in that it is my religious belief that such a perversion of the holy institution is wrong. On a slightly more secular level, I oppose homosexual marriage coming into the Republic of Ireland because it would mean I would be legally obliged to accept that such an custom would be right in the face of my own beliefs. The very fact our own Justice Minister is attempted to sneak the laws in without a referendum by the population, because he knows it would be soundly beaten, is equally disturbing as it indicates the beliefs of the majority of the country are secondary to the wished of the Minister for Justice. Those facts aside, it seems to be rather more distasteful today to be a practicing member of Catholicism as to be homosexual. I don't oppose homosexual rights, or rather that is to say I bear no ill-will towards people who are homosexual, but the idea that they wish to distort one of the major institutions of many religions to suit themselves seems just as wrong as denying them that right in the first place. If this is really about giving them the same legal rights as a married heterosexual couple then that's another issue, but if I must I will protest any attempts for a gay couple to degrade a church in Ireland with their so-called marriage ceremony.[/SIZE][/QUOTE] no, no, no ,no ,no, no. Let me get this straight, you wish to impose a limit on other people, because if you don't impose that limit [i]they[/i] are being intolerant of [i]your[/i] beliefs? I believe you are confusing state marriages with religious ones. The RCC can marry or not marry whoever it chooses to. The government (at least in the US) was founded on equality and religious tolerance, and so should act based on tolerance, not the whishes of one group. State marriages do not take place in a church, and have very little to do with religion Its hard for me as an American to see this as an assault on marriage, because degrading marriage any further is pretty much impossible. The word has almost no meaning here. Maybe in Ireland things are different, but in order for me to understand how you see this as degrading I'd have to know how you view marriage. The issue may be divisive, but that is exactly why it must be faced. We cannot simply turn our backs, we must face reality and deal with it. We must debate it, because if we don't then our views truly can't change, and we will always be divided. Finally, did it ever cross your mind that since you admit that its wrong to deny them that right, maybe we shouldn't?

[quote name='Avenged666fold']Ok to start of comparing what happened to black people and what is happening to gay people are entire solar sytems apart. Black people where enslaved. You show me a plantation of gay slvaes in america then maybe ill think about putting them on the same level. Also isn't marriage between a man and a woman? So wouldn't giving gay people something like it but not exactly the same thing be equal? I mean really there not an equal couple. They lack the ability to make children there are laws in marriage about children. So the laws don't apply to them? Well then that's not equal is it?[/quote] Please think before posting. There are heterosexual couples who are physcially incapable of having children, shall we ban them from marrying? The idea of whether or not marriage is only between a man and a woman isa what we're debating. You can't start a proof assuming the theorum you're trying to prove, you have to get to it from some other means. How about this, only Jews can complain about rights, because we didn't through blacks into ovens? Just because someone else once had it worse doesn't mean that we should ignore current bigotry. We say people deserve equality, we should give them equality. Seriously, nothing in that post was well though out, you really need to think about our arguments and not just give your first reaction.

My thoughts: The amendment has almost no chance of passing, so I think it is meant as a distraction. We're here talking about it. Consider me distracted, Mr President, I'm not thinking about the NSA, Iraq, Iran, the environment, or the estate tax at all. Gay marriage. Okay, so two other people go and have a happy monogamous relationship. Why is this my business? "think of the children" defense. Okay, so children see that we're not hypocritical bigots. Weren't hypocrites and bigots the two types of people Jesus admonished and corrected the most? If you mean think of children they might adopt, that's a slightly different issue, but assuming they are allowed to adopt, why is that bad. Sodom has already been covered. "Judge not lest ye be judged" is probably the best thing I can say to those who want to condemn it, which is especially fitting since this is called the Defense of Marriage Amendment in a country with what divorce rating again? I think its over 50%, but I could be wrong. Jesus welcomed in the sinners. He didn't force them, he welcomed them to change. If you are a Christian (here I literally mean a follower of Christ, I don't care about denomination or anything else) shouldn't you follow his example? Fianlly, I'm for civil rights. They are citizens, they deserve at least respect under the law. edit: just looked more closely at Avenged's posts, felt some things needed addressing First of all, a flaw in the genes is a mutation. Anything else isn't a flaw, genetically speaking. On the judgement day, the Lord will judge us by what standards? How we treat the lesast of his people, or whether or not we are gay? God tells us not to judge, so you condemn a group of people. Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, an many more do not believe in the same religion you do. Will you condemn them for not following God's word as well? If you claim homosexuality is an affliction, the why do you crusade against it? Shouldn't you care for the ill?

Start out basic. Take something that's either really basic or really well known and use that as your starting point. Basic things would be like stereotypes. You can play around with it, but before you do anything too wierd I'd advise getting a common starting point and just altering it.

I forgot about this one, which I found in an Asimov book "Never let your sense of morals keep you from doing what is right" Sometimes we get too caught up in thinking about things or in our own sense of what's right and wrong, but really what we should do is just do what's right when we need to and sort it all out later.

This board definitely has the most active (and thus most strict) mods. They are everywhere and they are very involoved. It's not massive, and people don't seem to post too often in the Otaku Lounge. I think the size is part of what allows the mods to keep an eye on everything, since some boards are literally too big for the mods to fully control. I don't mind the strict mods, though it takes getting used to. I'm used to more casual rules, and I usually am a very sloppy typer, so getting in the habit of using correct grammar and spelling is difficult.

[QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman][color=#9933ff][font=lucida calligraphy]I've had a long day and I'm tired so I'm only going to reply to this one thing. I'm Catholic but I am also a moderate when it comes to politics so in the words of Jesus: Judge not lest ye be judged. See told you I was tired[/color][/font][/QUOTE] I'm not sure how you mean that. Politically, I agree with you. If you meant it towards me (which i don't think you did, but I want to be sure) I already admitted that I misunderstood how you meant it the first time

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=#9933ff][font=lucida calligraphy] Define fun. [/color'][/font][/quote] anything I do when I should be doing chemistry [quote][color=#9933ff][font=lucida calligraphy]Not to be rude. But the end of the world thing just gets to me after a while. No one has been able to accurately predict when the world will end. I think we'd do our best to just continue to be considerate people and let the world end on its own.[/color][/font][/quote] I understand that feeling, but if it's going to get to you, you should at least consider avoiding it [quote][color=#9933ff][font=lucida calligraphy]I was just using it as an example of what some people think will cause the world to end. I don't see how using same sex marriage as an example of some people's thinking is being uncivil.[/color][/font][/quote] I may have been a bit premature there, but the impression that I got was that you were pretty much attacking people of faith for the words of a few extremists *coughpatrobertsoncough* [quote][color=#9933ff][font=lucida calligraphy]Okay. That just confused me. I don't see why only a certain amount of people should be allowed to be saved. It seems unfair somehow that you can only be saved if you are a true believer of only one faith.[/color][/font][/quote] I think Dodeca got this, but the number 12 meant wholeness, so 144000 meant that the whole of Israel could be saved. It wasn't meant literally, it was sort of like how we still refer to the twelve apostle, despite there having been at least 15 who are called aspostles in the Bible. [quote][color=#9933ff][font=lucida calligraphy]If terrorists get that far, than the leaders of the nations aren't doing their jobs right.[/color][/font][/QUOTE] Leaders not doing their jobs isn't exactly an unheard of thing. My point is that the end of the world shouldn't be ridiculed out of hand, because like it or not it can end soon. Nuclear warfare and a certain date are two seperate issues, and I can fully understand why people take issue with the whole 6/6/06 thing, but that shouldn't make us ignore the actual dangers. HR, you really should choose. Either post and give your position, or stay out. I have nothing against anyone putting forth a position and civily defending it, and I doubt anyone else does either, but we really can't make sense of your position and are trying to figure it out. It makes things easier for everyone if you just post what you want to say as straightforwardly as possible, with no dodges, no "making us do our own work" or anything like that, and just say what you want to say. Most of the frustration here is because we aren't all sure exactly what it is you're trying to say, or how you're trying to defend it. If you are more straightforward, we can understand what you are saying and may even agree with you, but if you continue talking in circles we can't do much of anything. [quote name='ecstasy']What, praytell, does Daniel and Thessalonians have to do with Revelations? You said the "key is in Revelation." So, what does Daniel and Thessalonians have to do with it? I've studied this topic a bit, and Daniel and thessalonians, although having references to the end of the world, they have nothing significant to add.[/quote] Daniel and Thessalonians, mostly just Daniel actually, are important because they influenced John. He was most likely very familiar with the OT, and sp much of his symbolism would be drawn from the OT. Sonce Daniel is really the only other Apocalyptic book in the Bible, he draws most heacily from there.