Gay Marriage

Gay Marriage - should it be allowed?

  • Everyone should be allowed to marry, given that they are of legal age and want to

    Votes: 18 100.0%

  • Marriage is MF, but gays should be able to have Civil Unions

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Marriage is man and woman period

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Big J missed my answer which is explained below

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    18
Maybe Im wrong but wasn't the US founded on Christian belief? I do not feel that non-Christians have no place in my country (Eon you make me laf with your extremes) but that seperation of Church and state should be null and void.
 
Refering to someone said about Homosexuals adopting kids, I see that on tv, but doesn't mean I'm adopted.

My dad is a Homosexual(Gay), I guess he wanted to see how it would look if he had kids like us. (me and my sister) And now, my parents are divorce cause of my dad being gay, he couldn't support us.

As for marriages, if their gay and like each other like a relationship, then sure, get married.

As for being Christian and Gay, I think only straight people should be Christians, so it won't ruin your scriptures/laws/rules/ whatever they are.

As for politics, i dont care about that, whatever u say.
 
How can you have a multi-cultural nation when you have no seperation of Church and State? To my mind, the quest to create a nation where no one religion held sway and where Law was Law unto itself rather than a way for petty curtain-twitchers to interfere in the lives of others - that was the honourable part of the independence movement in the US!

If you want some twisted sort of Western version of Sharia law - then go live in a Quaker or Amish community, but why drag the rest of the US with you?
 
I believe the Quakers and Amish have good intentions but take there beliefs a little to far, they do make good furniture though
biggrin.gif
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (ToJ | Dead_Aim @ Jan. 28 2004,11:39)]Maybe Im wrong but wasn't the US founded on Christian belief? I do not feel that non-Christians have no place in my country (Eon you make me laf with your extremes) but that seperation of Church and state should be null and void.
Click to expand...
I would say youre wrong considering the founding fathers tore references to Jesus out of their Bibles.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Hquest @ Nov. 22 2003,6:44)]We can see how homosexuality has caused a split in the church when a practising gay bishop was ordained a month ago.  Homosexuality, I believe is a wrong, but no worse than any other sin.
I have a friend who is a non-practising homosexual, but remains celibate and unmarried because of his christian faith.
Click to expand...
wouldn't that make him/her asexual?
 
I believe the term is Celibate. Asexual would mean he tries to reproduce by splitting himself down the middle! ;)
 
Our country? Nacirema? Founded on Christian principles? Founded on God? Founded on beliefs in da Lord-uh? Uh-uh.
Nope. Our country was founded for the express purpose of evading another government, and if a couple of the fathers liked God enough to mention him in their charters, well fine and dandy. Our country however, is not and never was founded on Christian beliefs. I used to like to think so, but it's not true.

Asexual? That's like...umm. Amoebic reproduction. Celibate, yeah.
Okay. My friend thinks he was born gay, yet has searched the Bible and found nothing to say that he can't still have Jesus Christ as his Savior. He loves women. I mean, dang. To me, he's as straight as can be, with some effeminate tendencies. I don't call him gay, and I tell him that I don't think he's gay, but he just thinks he was born that way. I guess he would call himself a non-practicing homosexual too. I still don't think he is, but whatever. He will never screw a guy or become intimately involved with a male. As to why? He loves God first. As to second, he loves women next. I know he does, because he's always on about them, and not trying to hide in himself or whatever. He's not outgoing, but that doesn't make him queer. I tell him that but...whatever.
 
er no comment on ur friend ultima.

ok maybe not our Country but our constituion was based on some if not most Christian princeables.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Ultima Avatar @ Jan. 30 2004,8:04)]Our country was founded for the express purpose of evading another government, and if a couple of the fathers liked God enough to mention him in their charters, well fine and dandy. Our country however, is not and never was founded on Christian beliefs.
Click to expand...
Um, actually, you're mostly wrong there.

Look at why certain colonial groups came over from England/The Netherlands/etc. The northern colonies were founded for expressly religious reasons (the Puritans to escape persecution from the Anglican church, etc...). Even the colonies formed out of these first colonies were for religious reasons!

Read some stuff by the early colonial guys, like William Bradford, Thomas Morton, John Winthrop, Roger Williams, and Anne Bradstreet. Now, they may have been extremely conservative Christians (Bradford, Winthrop etc.) or liberal Christians (Morton, Bradstreet, etc.), but still all these colonies were based on Christianity in one form or another.

Once you start making your way down south, though, things changed a little. John Penn was a Quaker, and instead of founding Pennsylvania on exclusive Christian beliefs, he allowed for freedom of (and from) religion (thus I suppose early Pennsylvania would have attracted Eon
wink.gif
. Maryland was founded as a refuge for Catholics! John Smith, on the other hand, was rather areligious, just wanting to get things going for England in Virginia. Georgia was originally a commune for English debt criminals.

Be careful when you start talking about the "founding" of the nation.

Now, in the late 1770s, when the nation's central political body was founded, it's true that religion wasn't the main focus. Nevertheless, our government was set up for the most part on Christian beliefs. Does that mean all the founding fathers were Christian? Certainly not. Thomas Jefferson was a Deist, and like 4top alluded, he made his own version of the Bible! Ben Franklin was sort of a Deist; but he also said that whatever religious beliefs made people treat others with respect and help others in life was fine with him. [He even sat in on a few of Jonathan Edwards' sermons; though he wasn't persuaded, he was delighted by the fact that those Christians were dedicated to being good citizens.]

There is no black-and-white answer to the question of whether our country was "founded" on Christian beliefs.
 
Nooo. The government, the country was not founded for any religious purposes. They left because they didn't like being told what to do, and that also heavily included their religious lives.
They came here, founded colonies where they called the shots, and also were allowed to worship how they pleased. What a plus to toss into the bargain. The main focus, however and still was not freedom for religion: it was freedom from tyranny.
The founders were mostly of a religious bent, but the country was not founded to be a Christian state or a religious nation, but one independent of other influencing factors. Like England.
 
If you consider being asked to foot the bill for your own bloody Army as Tyranny... <sighs>
 
It wasn't merely that Eon.
There was much to the decision to say, "Screw you guys, I'm going home." Religion, partly. Governmental independence, another, I guess. Though that idea came about only AFTER the whole "Let's revolt" idear got tossed up thanks to taxes on things that needed to be taxed, on having soldiers hole up in the neighborhood for an indefinite period of time, to forge your own country with only colonists and soldiers as your cannon fodder and then have the mother country get some audacity to say, "Where's our allegiance, fat boy?"

Yeah I guess that pissed off the colonists. Maybe it shouldn't have. But then again, both were at fault. The government shouldn't'a tried to say, "DUDES. We're gonna squash you like bugs til you bend on both knees to us" and the people shouldn't'a said, "DUDES. Screw y'all. We built this spacelord mothermother right here." And then maybe the gov shouldn't'a said, "But we like GAVE y'all the crap y'all needed" and then old grudges shouldn't'a been brought up, but blah blah
and the rest, as they say, is a la historia.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Ultima Avatar @ Jan. 30 2004,2:05)]They left because they didn't like being told what to do, and that also heavily included their religious lives.
Click to expand...
They left because they didn't like being told what to do IN their religious lives.

I showed you proof of my argument, you show me proof of yours. None of this "I think" stuff.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Ultima Avatar @ Jan. 30 2004,2:04)]Okay. My friend thinks he was born gay, yet has searched the Bible and found nothing to say that he can't still have Jesus Christ as his Savior. He loves women. I mean, dang. To me, he's as straight as can be, with some effeminate tendencies. I don't call him gay, and I tell him that I don't think he's gay, but he just thinks he was born that way. I guess he would call himself a non-practicing homosexual too. I still don't think he is, but whatever. He will never screw a guy or become intimately involved with a male. As to why? He loves God first. As to second, he loves women next. I know he does, because he's always on about them, and not trying to hide in himself or whatever. He's not outgoing, but that doesn't make him queer. I tell him that but...whatever.
Click to expand...
Okay so he thinks he is gay (homosexual), but he won't have a relationship (of any form with a guy), loves woman and talks about them all the time.

Someone wanna tell me why he thinks hes gay? May just be like metrosexual thing going on (I don't know him so I shan't judge).
 
They went, in the name of the Mother Country, to take land claimed by that country and start a new life. Many got grants for the purchase of tools, livestock etc.

There was a war being fought over there, and the soldiers were required to stop the whole thing being taken over by the French. The stamp act had already been enacted in other parts of the dominion and it was felt that it was time for the Colonies in America to start paying their way.

There was no interference in the religious or other freedoms of the Colonies and even during the War of Independence itself a majority of "Americans" would not have voted in favour of succession. Instead a vocal minority pushed the war through and made a moot point of it. In addition stories of atrocities committed by British troops during the war of Independence later turned out to be just that. Stories.

Look at it any way you want - the whole thing was about a seizure of power by local politicians. You'll notice that tax cuts weren't immediately forthcoming once the "state of emergency" was over...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top