I have questions for those participating in this discussion who think allowing Gays to marry will harm the the institution of marriage. How?
Answered by me on page 2, marriage by defintion is between an man and a woman that s what the word means in the English language, no if ands, or buts. Call a homosexaul relationship what ever you want I don't care, call it "Bob"(stolen unashamidly from TL's answer on age 1)
will it effect your personal beliefs about marriage?
Note the use of the words "call it what you/they want" and "for all I care " on page 1&2 of original thread

Do your beliefs change because somebody different has a different idea about marriage than you?
See same original post as before note the words "No It JUST means their relationships can't be called marriage, Call it Homoarrige, call it what you/they want. But the fact remains that words have meanings, and if we are going to change the meanings of words,we might as well scrap all communications because it will be useless." Or from TL "Legal: Call it marriage, a PAC, a civil union (VT and France seem to have VERY similar systems, btw), covorting concubines, or "Bob" for all I care, but give nontraditional couples the same legal rights of inheritance, medical benefits, tax benefits, next-of-kin status, etc as traditional couples." Both of these statments mean the same thing NO My beliefs won't change because somebody has a differant idea. Further answered by each and every post that was a point/counter point on this issue.It seems NOBODY and I mean NOBODY on the whole "Damn thread" is willing to change. In fact I'm laughing my rear end off at damn near every post after about page 4 on the original thread. "Hale" I don't think I've seen so much rehashing of the same points, because others don't change their point of view. When neither side is willing to change, yet they'll sure as pooping try to get the other side to change but are unwilling to change themselves. At least TL and I were honest about it up front. EDIT: Sir K was also honest and upfront, sorry I forgot your original post, Sir K, my appoligies.

Will your beliefs about marriage change if gay marriage becomes legal?
No because "by definition Marriage is between and man and a woman, that's what the word means" (page 2)


Also, How will the institution of marriage be harmed by allowing even more people to lovingly participate? Marriage won't, but I don't know about "Bob" ;)

[ 08-09-2003, 01:40 AM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

It is stubborn biased denial to claim that it is so. Like I said your free to believe it and you can quote the whole bible for all I care, but the founders of America DID NOT WRITE THE BIBLE.

They wrote the constitution. The ideals this nation were founded up on are clearly outlined in the constitution, NOT THE BIBLE!!!!!!
It serves the seperation of church and state and an accurate portrayal of the history of the nation.

Common sense and common law aren't unique to Judeo-Christians.

This is foolish and pointless. You have proved you can be sensational, nothing more.

Intercourse = natural
petri dish = unatural/in additon too
Now if anybody want to use a petri dish be my guest, I don't want to know nor do I care. But as for me I'll stick to the old fashioned way. I don't know about the women you have been hanging around with, but my wife doesn't have a petri dish ;)

[qoute]My point is that an act of sexual intercourse between a man and woman(heterosexual sexual activity) is not the only way to procreate. It can be done without any sex between a man and a woman. It can be done with a male sex act alone.[/QUOTE]
I'm sure they could also use a needle, but I don't EVEN want to go there ;)


There is not such thing as "nothing" if there was then it would be something and not nothing. ;)

[ 08-09-2003, 01:33 AM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

Seems the definition of marriage is not so cut and dry:

notice definition 1d.

It is stubborn biased denial to claim that it is so. Like I said your free to believe it and you can quote the whole bible for all I care, but the founders of America DID NOT WRITE THE BIBLE.

They wrote the constitution. The ideals this nation were founded up on are clearly outlined in the constitution, NOT THE BIBLE!!!!!!
It serves the seperation of church and state and an accurate portrayal of the history of the nation.

Common sense and common law aren't unique to Judeo-Christians. </font>[/QUOTE]Like it or not the VALUES influencing the writers of the constitution were Judeo-Christian. The eight hour work day is based on the "protestant work ethic". No common sense and common law isn't unique to Christianity, however one can easily see the correlation between the old testament and American/European laws and morality.

It was not founded on principles of Tibetan polygamy, where the woman has more than one husband for example. Sensational or not, you are ignoring the Puritan tradition, the Protestant heritage, the values - including seperation of church and state - which arose from the beliefs the individuals held. Europe had experienced such negative consequences of mingling church and state. The Hugeunots are a testament to that. THe Americans had just fought a war against Britain, which had the Monarch as head of the national church. REACTIONISM. The attitdue founding seperation of church and state itself was founded on Protestant idealism! You cannot divorce the ideals of the founding fathers, or the beliefs they held, from the society they attempted to establish, however flawed.

This seems to be an interesting reocurrence with you Chewbacca. You don't seem to see your own bias.

When we were talking about the Iraqi throwing away his moral code and coming to America, you put yourself in his position. But not really. You didn't reverse it totally. You put you, an American with your moral code, in his shoes and his moral code. But your preferences, your decision were inescapably linked to your own values.

As I said at the time, to truly be in his position, you would have to go against your current moral code, and put yourself in a society that has a code repugnant to you.

Yet at this you proclaimed this was not so. SOmehow, you've come upon the idea, that your morals are objectively better than anyone elses. That's what right and worng are universal truths all humans should stuble across.

Yet humans think in radically different ways depending on the culture they are born into. Muslims from Pakistan, schooled at the Rabats and hard core schools have a radically different view of right and wrong, justice, morality and ethics than you or I do. Ours is founded on Judeo-Christian principles, whether you've reacted against those principles or using them to change finer points of itself.

You are a product of your society, and your society is a product of its past and the people that founded it. These are inescapable realities.

Christians actually have a hard time ministering in America PRECISELY because of this foundation which BLURRS the line between Christian and non-Christian. We end up with a wierd "pseudo-Christian" or atheist with Christian morals.

You simply have to live for a while in a nation founded on things OTHER than Christian worldviews to understand this difference.

Take Kakero. An agnostic poster from the west threw the "You can't take it with you" line. A principle found in the Bible.

Kakero's cultural worldview is that, you most certainly do take it with you. His culture has ceremonies where they burn money for their ancestors.

Religious or not religious, the person born of Judeo-Christian society had incorperated Judeo-Christian ideas about the temporary nature of material wealth.

Religious or not religious, the person born outside of that held the view of their own culture.

</font>[/QUOTE]It is the last and least used. So because somebody missused the word and over time people continued to miss use the word. The homosexual community couldn't come up with a term/word for their union and the publisher added it to his newest dicionary, SEE print date 2000. That doesn't impress me, show me the definitions of the word over time. After all we have to stick to the historical facts. What are the definitions from the 3rd, 2nd, and 1st printings? Anybody want to make a bet that the fourth (d) is not there?
What about webster's dictionary? & the Webster's earlier printings? or prehaps Oxford's? & Oxford's early printings? At what time did that definition come into the printing? And by what authorithy does American Heritage have to add the definition?

Your right Yorick, I am so totally biased and I am blinded by it. You are superior. I'm forever going to defer to you as the wisest of the wise. The grand puba of religion and philosophy. You are so correct. Nobody can disagree with you or have their own ideas without being biased and blinded by their own bias.

Quote:

When we were talking about the Iraqi throwing away his moral code and coming to America, you put yourself in his position. But not really. You didn't reverse it totally. You put you, an American with your moral code, in his shoes and his moral code. But your preferences, your decision were inescapably linked to your own values. As I said at the time, to truly be in his position, you would have to go against your current moral code, and put yourself in a society that has a code repugnant to you. Yet at this you proclaimed this was not so. SOmehow, you've come upon the idea, that your morals are objectively better than anyone elses. That's what right and worng are universal truths all humans should stuble across.

I never claimed My morals are better or worse than anyone elses

Quote:

Yet humans think in radically different ways depending on the culture they are born into. Muslims from Pakistan, schooled at the Rabats and hard core schools have a radically different view of right and wrong, justice, morality and ethics than you or I do. Ours is founded on Judeo-Christian principles, whether you've reacted against those principles or using them to change finer points of itself. You are a product of your society, and your society is a product of its past and the people that founded it. These are inescapable realities.

Believe this all you want, leave me out of it

Quote:

Christians actually have a hard time ministering in America PRECISELY because of this foundation which BLURRS the line between Christian and non-Christian. We end up with a wierd "pseudo-Christian" or atheist with Christian morals. You simply have to live for a while in a nation founded on things OTHER than Christian worldviews to understand this difference. Take Kakero. An agnostic poster from the west threw the "You can't take it with you" line. A principle found in the Bible. Kakero's cultural worldview is that, you most certainly do take it with you. His culture has ceremonies where they burn money for their ancestors. Religious or not religious, the person born of Judeo-Christian society had incorperated Judeo-Christian ideas about the temporary nature of material wealth. Religious or not religious, the person born outside of that held the view of their own culture.

You find it hard to tolerate people with unorthodox ideas that disagree with yours dont you?

</font>[/QUOTE]It is the last and least used. So because somebody missused the word and over time people continued to miss use the word. The homosexual community couldn't come up with a term/word for their union and the publisher added it to his newest dicionary, SEE print date 2000. That doesn't impress me, show me the definitions of the word over time. After all we have to stick to the historical facts. What are the definitions from the 3rd, 2nd, and 1st printings? Anybody want to make a bet that the fourth (d) is not there?
What about webster's dictionary? & the Webster's earlier printings? or prehaps Oxford's? & Oxford's early printings? At what time did that definition come into the printing? And by what authorithy does American Heritage have to add the definition? </font>[/QUOTE]Gee, lets go search the internet for the history of marriage...I did that on the first thread. The history of marriage indicates it's definiton has changed
through out history. If anything resisting the change of definiton to include gay unions contradicts the history of marriage itself.

Now Now Chewbacca I answered your questions can you not do the same? As for the history where has it changed from a man and woman except in the last few years through a miss use of the word? Opps there I go asking another question ;)