Calif. high court upholds gay-marriage ban

[Rusty Spy]

1)Going by the general standard you have laid, does truth even exist? (My answer is yes, and your anwers seem to be no.)

In terms of fundamental life, no. everyone lives differently, lives by different standards, and live by different morals.

2)If truth does exist, would it not be a disservice to not try to convince people to follow it? (Read above.)

Yes, see above.

Everybody lives differently from all of us. Some lifestyles are considered taboo by the general opinion, but no one really tries to make them live otherwise because there's no point in doing so. They may not agree with how they live, but they just accept that some people prefer to live that way, and they leave it at that.

[Dr. Mechano]

All your arguments are nothing new to me. I just have two more questions for you to consider, then I will shut up:

1)Going by the general standard you have laid, does truth even exist? (My answer is yes, and your anwers seem to be no.)

2)If truth does exist, would it not be a disservice to not try to convince people to follow it? (Read above.)

And note that I am not talking about scientific truth (which I refer to as "facts" when they are irrefutably proven), but rather fundamental truths about life.

But why is this concept a truth?

Despite us both believing in the same faith, we obviously interpret what the Bible may or may not say about homosexuality differently. In the end, there's really no way I can prove my interpretation is more valid than yours, or vice versa.

For me, I need more than a "Because I said so" from God. If something is "wrong", I feel it should actually be harmful/evil in some way- But this isn't. It's no more wrong than eating pork, I contend, because there are no harmful/destructive/bad points to it other than the "I think scripture says this is wrong." position many people take.

Edited May 28, 2009 by El Gran Gordo

[Random Rhyme]

Speaking of different morals. Negativity hinders progression which is one of the reasons I went to the Christian faith was for its morals.

Edited May 28, 2009 by Shade737

[Badnik Zero]

About the nature of truth. I would say that no one person has the whole truth. And I wouldn't really trust anyone who says he does.

Edited May 28, 2009 by Badnikz

[Unknown]

*Sigh*... I don't like how gay marriage is made into such a major issue when its really not that important.

Anyway, my view on the whole subject: While I believe that gay marriage is a sin (flame me if you want, its just my opinion), I also think that its not really my place to go and condemn a gay person, considering that, by God's standards, I'm just as bad as them and everyone else in the world, since all humans are sinners. Therefore, I think gay marriage would be OK, on one condition-Give churches (and other religious institutions, if they so choose) the right not to marry a gay couple if its against their beliefs. That way, gays get their rights and Christians won't have to do something they feel is wrong.

I think that's actually the point of civil unions currently anyway, but if its seriously a problem to have that separate name for it, then call it marriage for them. Just don't intrude upon the sanctity of marriage for those who still hold it as a sacred union.

[The Conductor]

But how is it not sacred? Just because it's two men? Surley God is happy to see any expression of love from two consenting people?

[DarkOverord]

I think that's actually the point of civil unions currently anyway,

Yes it is. But from what I've seen of America protesters.

Don't understand why she's bothered. Because most most people here in the UK refer to Civil Unions as marriages anyway. Though I find this interesting. I was always under the impression no-where in the US allowed same sex marriages.

Edited May 28, 2009 by DarkOverord

[TitanFifty]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VbdcwgRTO8

This guy says it best.

Also, I want that shirt

[Roarey Raccoon]

All your arguments are nothing new to me. I just have two more questions for you to consider, then I will shut up:

1)Going by the general standard you have laid, does truth even exist? (My answer is yes, and your anwers seem to be no.)

2)If truth does exist, would it not be a disservice to not try to convince people to follow it? (Read above.)

And note that I am not talking about scientific truth (which I refer to as "facts" when they are irrefutably proven), but rather fundamental truths about life.

For someone with the truth you're sure having a hard time making any arguments that aren't rubbish XP.

[DarkOverord]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VbdcwgRTO8

This guy says it best.

Also, I want that shirt

...Is it bad I can't stand him ):

[T-Bird]

I still find it highly amusing that we live in a day and age that still upholds crackers rules and regulations about marraige.

You know, Henry the 8th had it right; when the Church refused to remarry him after a divorce, he made his own church.

Dunno why you'd want to get married anyway; just another legal clause that states if you decide that you'd quite fancy to do dirty with someone else you'll loose half your posessions.

There again folks, what do you expect from the state that has the Terminator as it's Governor?

T

EDIT: Alternatively, go to Iowa.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

I just have two more questions for you to consider, then I will shut up:

1)Going by the general standard you have laid, does truth even exist? (My answer is yes, and your anwers seem to be no.)

2)If truth does exist, would it not be a disservice to not try to convince people to follow it? (Read above.)

Pretty screwy questions if you ask me, but to answer both: No.

And note that I am not talking about scientific truth (which I refer to as "facts" when they are irrefutably proven), but rather fundamental truths about life.

Buddy, any one aspect of any fundamental truths about life would be impossible to comprehend in a single book. They form out of changes in lifestyles because of things like simple ideas, Enlightenment, or Conquest. (And anything else I may have missed)

Christianity will fall the same fate that fell other religions and beliefs before it, such as the Egyptians, the the Incas, the Aztec, etc.

[Jay (Eggemann)]

Everything should be called marriage. I like that we have Civil Partnerships in the uk, but they should be called marriage. Just like in the US, domestic partnetship bollocks should also be replaced with marriage.

Why shouldn't it be equal? WHY.

Some may argue marriage is that "god" thing and should remain that way. Infact I agree with that.

HOWEVER, in such a case, ALL WEDDINGS, STRAIGHT, GAY OR WITH A DOG, OUT SIDE OF THE CHRUCH, should be referred to as Civil Partnership/Domestic Partnership and not marriage. If a boy and girl fall in love and want to be legally recognised but dont want to do it with god... THEN NO MARRIAGE FOR YOU.

I also think this should be retroactive for everyone since these things are always with gay marriages. "Your married" "We changed our mind its not legal" "But we already got married" "SOZ ITS RETROACTIVE YOUR MARRIAGE IS NOW NOTHING BUT LULZ"

[DarkOverord]

Everything should be called marriage. I like that we have Civil Partnerships in the uk, but they should be called marriage. Just like in the US, domestic partnetship bollocks should also be replaced with marriage.

Why shouldn't it be equal? WHY.

As said, it may be called "Civil Partnership" but we still refer to it as a marriage, purely because it's performed by a marriage registrar. In the end, Civil Partnership isn't a "gay only" term. My mum and step-dad are technically married by Civil Partnership as they've lived together for +6 years (I forget what it is by law). All a Civil Partnership is is a marriage that is performed outside of churches. And as I have also stated, the Anglican Church allows gay marriage.

HOWEVER, in such a case, ALL WEDDINGS, STRAIGHT, GAY OR WITH A DOG, OUT SIDE OF THE CHRUCH, should be referred to as Civil Partnership/Domestic Partnership and not marriage. If a boy and girl fall in love and want to be legally recognised but dont want to do it with god... THEN NO MARRIAGE FOR YOU.

See above, they are in Britain, if it's not performed by a vicar/priest it's not a Marriage. Regardless of sexuality.

I also think this should be retroactive for everyone since these things are always with gay marriages. "Your married" "We changed our mind its not legal" "But we already got married" "SOZ ITS RETROACTIVE YOUR MARRIAGE IS NOW NOTHING BUT LULZ"

In this case it WASN'T retroactive.

[Jay (Eggemann)]

I was just saying, usually it is.

And while techically straight people are going through a civil partnership. It is still a marriage and recognized as such. I just think us fags should have the same. It may only be a title, but it's still unequal.

When my parents remarried at the end they were told by the registrar they were "lawfully married" or whatever. I want that too. Maybe Im just a greedy git

[DarkOverord]

I was just saying, usually it is.

And while techically straight people are going through a civil partnership. It is still a marriage and recognized as such. I just think us fags should have the same. It may only be a title, but it's still unequal.

When my parents remarried at the end they were told by the registrar they were "lawfully married" or whatever. I want that too. Maybe Im just a greedy git

As said, it's the same for gay people =/ Remember there's the legal rights of marriage (Civil unionship) and the religious rights. I may not wanna get married in the future but I've looked

Edited May 28, 2009 by DarkOverord

[Jay (Eggemann)]

Christ this all so confusing lol

[Cortez]

O lawd not again. Looks like its time for God VS Gays Round 2: The Revenge of Roarey Raccoon. Seriously, its just the same old arguments and counter arguments as the last gay topic, Baron says some stuff about how God hates gays and how its a sin and Roarey counters it with a more upstanding argument. As for gay marriage, meh, I'm gay myself but personally I could never get married to another bloke, it just doesn't appeal to me. I still don't think it should be banned though, if two guys want to get married then go for it, its not like it affects anybody outside of the marriage so lord knows why they're making it illegal in California again, theres no real reason besides the usual 'ewww gay' argument =/.

[BaronSFel001]

For someone with the truth you're sure having a hard time making any arguments that aren't rubbish XP.

Here is the deal: if it is truth, it should not need to be explained, merely defended. I personally believe that truth always wins out in the end (whatever the end may be).

I notice that for the most part I have constantly been on the defensive. Just a rhetorical question (since I am trying to be done with this topic): how do any of you know that you are so right?

[The Conductor]

Here is the deal: if it is truth, it should not need to be explained, merely defended.

So wait, if I go out and massacre people in the name of truth then I don't need to explain myself? Bull. Shit.

[Roarey Raccoon]

Here is the deal: if it is truth, it should not need to be explained, merely defended. I personally believe that truth always wins out in the end (whatever the end may be).

I notice that for the most part I have constantly been on the defensive. Just a rhetorical question (since I am trying to be done with this topic): how do any of you know that you are so right?

The truth is something that you must be able to demonstrate, something that holds up to the most intense scrutiny imaginable. If it cannot survive challenge then it is not the truth. Your information comes from an extremely faulty source, therefore you are not talking the truth, you're just talking shit. You haven't managed to argue against any point I've made, so you're not even half as dedicated to the truth as you say you are. Lying is not cool.

[TitanFifty]

Here is the deal: if it is truth, it should not need to be explained, merely defended. I personally believe that truth always wins out in the end (whatever the end may be).

I notice that for the most part I have constantly been on the defensive. Just a rhetorical question (since I am trying to be done with this topic): how do any of you know that you are so right?

How do you know that you are so right?

[DarkOverord]

How do you know that you are so right?

Because the bible said so probably.

Edited May 28, 2009 by DarkOverord

[BaronSFel001]

The truth is something that you must be able to demonstrate, something that holds up to the most intense scrutiny imaginable. If it cannot survive challenge then it is not the truth. Your information comes from an extremely faulty source, therefore you are not talking the truth, you're just talking shit. You haven't managed to argue against any point I've made, so you're not even half as dedicated to the truth as you say you are. Lying is not cool.

Your definition is a good one. And I have simply not been able to argue to yours (or anyone's) satisfaction, because differing worldviews stack the deck of reasoning differently (what makes sense to me does not necessarily makes sense to you, but that still means nothing to determine which of us is right). And have you been able to argue against any of my points by the same token as I argue against yours? Just because something cannot be proven by human reasoning does not make it false.

What does this have to do with the original topic, anyway? I think I will shut up now, because this never gets anywhere (although, Roarey, I seem to be sparring with you in a lot of these, not to mention Gordo, who may be my heaven-bound brother but with certain moral and interpretive details messed up - well Gordo, when we get to heaven we will know what the real deal is, will we not?). At the very least, when history ends, everyone will know what the truth is.

Edited May 28, 2009 by BaronSFel001

[Roarey Raccoon]

Your definition is a good one. And I have simply not been able to argue to yours (or anyone's) satisfaction, because differing worldviews stack the deck of reasoning differently (what makes sense to me does not necessarily makes sense to you, but that still means nothing to determine which of us is right). And have you been able to argue against any of my points by the same token as I argue against yours? Just because something cannot be proven by human reasoning does not make it false.

What does this have to do with the original topic, anyway?

Has a lot to do with the original topic, because the entire grounds for banning gay marriage are religious ones. The claim is that homosexuality is sinful, and it isn't. It isn't sinful in the Bible, which only ever refers to acts of sexual intercourse, which are just as sinful as heterosexual sex. Nothing is mentioned of love, homosexual or otherwise, when debates on this topic arise from your end of the issue. It's all about what you're saying is sinful and should therefore be prohibited. You're supposed to make sense, you can't just be completely full of shit and then claim that somehow because you don't provide any reasoning it doesn't mean you're wrong. Is there some magical dimension in which you're never incorrect, or the worse your argument is, the closer to the truth you are? On what plane of existence will that utter crap ever make sense?

If you can demonstrate something is false via human reasoning then it is false, because human reasoning is the only form of reasoning there is, we're the only creatures who can reason. That's what truth and falsehood are all about; if you want to pass something off as true then you're going to need to back it up with some good reasons, that's just the way it is. Pulling a magical "I'm Right!" card out of your deck and throwing it on the table only shows how undedicated you are to discussion. So why on earth are you still posting?

As for me arguing against any of your points, the ones I saw I've torn apart, or did you not read my posts? XP

EDIT: Just to clarify the implications of your statement, you're saying that just because you can't personally prove something doesn't mean that it isn't true. Now philosophically you're correct, but we're not talking about that, this is the creation of public policies, laws, that dictate how people can live their lives. So you're essentially advocating that gay marriage should be banned for....reasons that don't need to be backed up with evidence. So the equivalent of "just because". Ehhhhhhhhh no.