You are just posting what the law already says and the results of votes.

 

Exactly.

 

Hideous, isn't it?

:lol

 

The board has (had) a voting system. I voted.

 

Have you suddenly developed a great disdain for voting or is it just that you dislike how I voted?

 

 

You're serious? You went through the thread and up-voted everything you agreed with and down-voted everything you disagreed with. The purpose of the voting system was to up-vote posts that you think make a good argument, and down-vote those you think make a poor argument. A post that claims that the universe is merely 5,000 years old and proof for that is the fact that the sun is shrinking and all of that nonsense... is a bad argument. It's factually incorrect. Sorry buddy, but you down-voting every single post is the very reason that the system was removed.

 

Furthermore, you failed to even show your face in the thread. You were simply hiding behind anonymity. Stand up and speak, stop hiding and having uneducated people doing your bidding for you.

 

 

Now, I'm no Christian, but rather an agnostic -- far be it from me or anyone else to know what resulted in 100+ billion galaxies with about 100 billion stars each, all of which dates from maybe 13 billion years ago. But, nonetheless, religious "texts" that are 2,000 years old serve the purpose of holding tried and true principles of society together.

 

Okay and I think that's the best approach to such a question. I am not a man of religion. I do not believe in a God, although I reserve the right to say God could exist. I don't know if you'd call that agnostic, but I don't think we're very far off from each other there. I wouldn't deny the fact that religion has done good (and bad) for society over the past 2,000 years. I would go so far as to say that it has birthed proper society. We're evolving as a society though. We've developed those morals and such. Religion is not holding us together. At this point in time, it's tearing us apart.

 

I don't give two sh!ts what one guy does with another in the privacy of their home, but please don't get in my face about it.

 

The original post said "I like Chick-fil-a quite a lot, and my wife has now sworn them off since the president of the company recently came out and stated (basically) that their company is against gay marriage."

 

Cathy said nothing of the sort. He runs his business according to his religious principles. They close on Sundays. They support the traditional (and obvious) definition of marriage and family and contribute to organizations that support those things. That's his right.

 

They don't discriminate against anyone, employee or customer.

 

Who is getting in your face about it? People simply just want equal rights. You give it to them, and you don't have to hear about it after that. Of course Cathy and Chick-Fil-A have been used as some sort of a scapegoat. They're just an icon for those supporting them. Those supporting them are those who are opposing gay marriage. Chick-Fil-A opposes gay marriage. Nobody said Cathy isn't allowed to believe what he wants to believe. The issue people have is Cathy saying that his beliefs should be law, and their beliefs should be against the law.

 

Nobody said Cathy can't speak his mind. Clearly those who support him have made it clear, and those who oppose him have also exercised their freedom of speech just in the same way that Cathy has exercised his.

 

 

What's the problem? Liberals can't stand the fact that someone else might have a different opinion and the balls to actually express it. In an interview in an obscure publication.

 

Are you kidding? This is a half and half battle here. Much like a bisexual, it goes both ways. Don't kid yourself, and don't let your political stance show here.

 

I could just as easily beg the question -- What's the problem with gay marriage? Conservatives can't stand the fact that someone else might have a different opinion and the balls to actually express it.

 

Damn, see how that works?

 

There have also been a lot of comments to the effect that religion should just "go away." Well, 40 years ago, I might have said the same thing, for some of the same reasons. Not a good idea. When traditional religion is banished, something else is substituted and you get the Soviet Union or China or Cuba or North Korea -- the state replaces religion as something to be worshiped. Why? Most people feel the need to worship something, and that urge is easily put to work.

 

Contrary, my friend. I believe in freedom. I believe in governmental balance, and zero control over what decisions people make. Freedom of religion. Freedom of choice to not abide by religion. Freedom of speech. Freedom to not speak at all. Freedom to criticize. Freedom to be criticized for your actions.

No it isn't. The conversation hasn't been about the law or the results of voting because it is already understood. Its beyond what is and is about what people think it could or should be and why.

 

OK.

 

It should be about preserving one of the basic pillars of our society, namely marriage between one man and one woman.

 

Don't you think it might be a good idea to preserve some sort of structure so as to actually try to bring up as much of the next generation as something other than feral gang members as is possible?

 

We've long ago ripped up bothering to get married, illegitimacy is rampant, thanks to 50 years of government as "husband." So, now, we should also rip up the entire concept of marriage?

 

If gay "marriage" is cool, no marriage is inconceivable. A few guys and/or girls, maybe throw in some animals (some people love them, you know,) there's no limit -- we'll have crossed that border long ago. The outcast Mormons in south Utah will be ecstatic, they'll be lobbying for cousins and step-sisters. And given another 50 years of "activism" (just like the last 50 years of BS,) "marriage" will have become meaningless. Lawyers for the "oppressed" who can't "marry" whoever or whatever will make it happen over time.

 

Yeah, that'll work.

It should be about preserving one of the basic pillars of our society, namely marriage between one man and one woman.

 

 

Except that even that is a relatively recent "pillar", at least as far as it exists in western society.

 

Up until very recently (relatively speaking, across the span of human existence), arranged and forced marriages were an accepted part of many cultures, and still are in some parts of the world.

 

In the United States, it was legal until 1967 for states to ban "non-traditional" marriages between races. For much of the Southern United States, "marriage between one man and one woman of the same race" was a basic pillar of society.

 

You aren't make arguments for why "marriage between one man and one woman" needs to be legally defended and restricted; you are making arguments for why it has been defended and restricted in the past.

 

Culture has shifted over the course of human existence, and generally in the right direction. Under biblical law, if a virgin was raped outside of a city's limits, her attacker was forced, by law, to marry her and pay a fine to her father for the right to do so. The fact that that no longer happens is progress. The fact that it used to be accepted is detestable and monstrous, and the fact that it no longer is is the result of the "progressives" of various eras moving culture in the right direction.

You went through the thread and up-voted everything you agreed with and down-voted everything you disagreed with.

 

That's right, it's called voting, something you apparently don't like. Could it be because I don't agree with you?

 

Furthermore, you failed to even show your face in the thread. You were simply hiding behind anonymity. Stand up and speak, stop hiding and having uneducated people doing your bidding for you.

 

Voting didn't require "showing my face." Only a totalitarian requires that.

 

And nobody, uneducated or otherwise "did my bidding," I voted after the fact. I guess I missed the rule that required me to post before voting.

 

And, I must note that you failed to acknowledge the fact that I just found this sub-forum, even though I have now posted numerous times to it before your post that belatedly claims that I'm "hiding."

Wow, quote me and delete what else I'd said about what the voting system is for. As made apparent by Admin, several times. Continue to write your own definitions, erase the proper ones, and then criticize me for not abiding by your definitions.

 

Sounds awfully familiar to the bigotry in this thread.

Except that even that is a relatively recent "pillar"

 

So, you've given up on the "infertile" argument, eh?

 

:lol

 

I'm making the argument for the basic concept -- sorry, I'm not going to chase after your dog and pony show about how this or that condition of it was wrong at some point in time.

 

One man + one woman = basic societal unit.

 

Marriage, whether state and/or church (whichever) sanctioned, doesn't matter, is the basic unit on which every successful society has been built.

 

Tear that basic building block down and you tear down your society over time, simple as that.

So, you've given up on the "infertile" argument, eh?

 

 

Wasn't my argument. I was pointing out why listing the ability to procreate as a precondition for marriage is a silly argument.

 

You're not really addressing anything anyone is saying in response to you, so this probably isn't worth anyone's time.

Wow, quote me and delete what else I'd said about what the voting system is for. As made apparent by Admin, several times. Continue to write your own definitions, erase the proper ones, and then criticize me for not abiding by your definitions.

 

Sounds awfully familiar to the bigotry in this thread.

 

 

Huh?

 

Here's your chance to quote me some "erased" "definitions."

:lol

 

The board has (had) a voting system. I voted.

 

Have you suddenly developed a great disdain for voting or is it just that you dislike how I voted?

 

 

You're serious? You went through the thread and up-voted everything you agreed with and down-voted everything you disagreed with. The purpose of the voting system was to up-vote posts that you think make a good argument, and down-vote those you think make a poor argument. A post that claims that the universe is merely 5,000 years old and proof for that is the fact that the sun is shrinking and all of that nonsense... is a bad argument. It's factually incorrect. Sorry buddy, but you down-voting every single post is the very reason that the system was removed.

 

Furthermore, you failed to even show your face in the thread. You were simply hiding behind anonymity. Stand up and speak, stop hiding and having uneducated people doing your bidding for you.

 

 

You went through the thread and up-voted everything you agreed with and down-voted everything you disagreed with.

 

That's right, it's called voting, something you apparently don't like. Could it be because I don't agree with you?

 

Furthermore, you failed to even show your face in the thread. You were simply hiding behind anonymity. Stand up and speak, stop hiding and having uneducated people doing your bidding for you.

 

Voting didn't require "showing my face." Only a totalitarian requires that.

 

And nobody, uneducated or otherwise "did my bidding," I voted after the fact. I guess I missed the rule that required me to post before voting.

 

And, I must note that you failed to acknowledge the fact that I just found this sub-forum, even though I have now posted numerous times to it before your post that belatedly claims that I'm "hiding."

 

You can't be serious. Just man up and stop being a bitch. You ruined the system because you abused it.

 

And start answering the actual topic and reply, not just the first paragraph.

Wasn't my argument. I was pointing out why listing the ability to procreate as a precondition for marriage is a silly argument.

 

Oh, really?

 

So, an argument that you didn't make isn't appropos to an argument that I didn't make?

 

:lol

Wasn't my argument. I was pointing out why listing the ability to procreate as a precondition for marriage is a silly argument.

 

Oh, really?

 

So, an argument that you didn't make isn't appropos to an argument that I didn't make?

 

You absolutely did make that argument.

 

"Gay "marriage" is an oxymoron. There are no offspring to whom to whom anything can be transmitted."

 

Your argument in that sentence was that a union between two men or women cannot be a "marriage" because they cannot produce offspring.

 

If that wasn't your argument, maybe you should clarify it

Continue to write your own definitions, erase the proper ones, and then criticize me for not abiding by your definitions.

 

I'm still waiting for you to quote me even one of those proper "definitions" you accuse me of "erasing."

 

Which proper "definitions" did I "erase"?

 

Lay it out and I'll respond.

Wasn't my argument.

 

OK.

 

But it still doesn't work.

 

Hetero couples go in with assumption that offspring are possible, homo couples go in with the absolute impossibility of offspring.

Wasn't my argument.

 

OK.

 

But it still doesn't work.

 

Hetero couples go in with assumption that offspring are possible, homo couples go in with the absolute impossibility of offspring.

 

Negative, at least not when speaking in absolutes like that.

 

Hetero couples in which one or both of the partners are infertile or post-childbearing age go in with the absolute impossibility of offspring. You would not deny them the privilege of marriage, would you?

 

That is why "the ability to procreate" is, reasonably, not a precondition for marriage.

 

If you want to say "A man and a man should not get married," whatever. That's your belief/opinion. But that specific argument as to why you think that belief is justified does not hold up to scrutiny, and you should discard it.

OK, I'll rephrase that:

 

MOST hetero couples go in with the assumption that offspring are possible, ALL homo couples go in with the absolute impossibility of offspring.

 

You don't seem to get what I'm saying, you're picking nits. Marriage -- in the traditional sense -- is the basic building block of a stable society.

 

We've beaten the crap out of it over the last 50 years, and we're paying the price. Judging by this thread, we'll continue to denigrate it, further demean it and finally demolish it.

 

So it may go, but anyone now less than 30 years old probably won't like the results 30 or 40 years from now.

We've beaten the crap out of it over the last 50 years, and we're paying the price. Judging by this thread, we'll continue to denigrate it, further demean it and finally demolish it.

 

 

Sorry, this is a bunch of horse sh*t. This argument is exactly why I brought up the "other definitions" of marriage in the past.

 

50 years ago, it was perfectly legal in the United States to deny a black man the right to marry a white woman. If ending stuff like that means we've "beaten the crap out of" traditional marriage, then I say keep f***ing swinging.

 

The definition of marriage has changed throughout the history of human civilization. The modern definition of marriage (any man, any woman, freely entering into a marriage) is a relatively recent concept.

MOST hetero couples go in with the assumption that offspring are possible, ALL homo couples go in with the absolute impossibility of offspring.

 

You don't seem to get what I'm saying, you're picking nits.

 

 

But that isn't nit picking. It is an argument that holds up to zero scrutiny.

 

The ability to have children has no bearing, whatsoever, on whether any one should be able to get married. You even agree with this statement. You only draw the line when it comes to the ability of homosexuals to be married, which you do regardless of whether they can have children or not.

 

But marriage doesn't have anything to do with having children.

Continue to write your own definitions, erase the proper ones, and then criticize me for not abiding by your definitions.

 

I'm still waiting for you to quote me even one of those proper "definitions" you accuse me of "erasing."

 

Which proper "definitions" did I "erase"?

 

Lay it out and I'll respond.

 

You're an idiot. I just did. You removed half of what I said and selectively quoted me. You ignored the other half of the quote. The part that makes you look like a jackass.

 

And you continue to ignore the topic. Go and answer the posts, or accept the fact that you're just wrong.

If marriage is truly a "pillar of society" as believed by the church, then they should focus on the people who are actually responsible for the decline of such an institution. Hint: it's not gay people.

FYI my earlier comments in this thread were directed not mainly toward Cathy's comments, but the gay marriage debate in general. And no, I don't believe the gluttony comments are a ridiculous. The Bible says that EVERYONE is a sinner, and EVERYONE falls short of the perfection of Christ. It's okay to believe that AN ACT is wrong. But unless you can prove that is detrimental to society without saying "Because that's what I believe", then your belief really has no right to interfere with the independent actions of other human beings. It's all very silly. Its like saying "I believe listening to Justin Bieber is wrong, therefore listening to his music is illegal". (Hell, his music is probably worse for society than gay marriage).

 

Just remember, the Bible says you are only saved by the grace of God. Too many of arrogant people out there look down upon gays as if they are above them. You're not.

 

Gay marriage is detrimental to society, it's just whether you want to accept that or not. I've already explained why its wrong both biblically and logically, I don't need to explain it any further. It affects others involved negatively, it's simple really.

 

Yes you're saved by grace or unmerited favor, a lot of people are a lot of things. Don't lump me with those who you have seen claim Christianity.

FYI my earlier comments in this thread were directed not mainly toward Cathy's comments, but the gay marriage debate in general. And no, I don't believe the gluttony comments are a ridiculous. The Bible says that EVERYONE is a sinner, and EVERYONE falls short of the perfection of Christ. It's okay to believe that AN ACT is wrong. But unless you can prove that is detrimental to society without saying "Because that's what I believe", then your belief really has no right to interfere with the independent actions of other human beings. It's all very silly. Its like saying "I believe listening to Justin Bieber is wrong, therefore listening to his music is illegal". (Hell, his music is probably worse for society than gay marriage).

 

Just remember, the Bible says you are only saved by the grace of God. Too many of arrogant people out there look down upon gays as if they are above them. You're not.

 

Gay marriage is detrimental to society, it's just whether you want to accept that or not. I've already explained why its wrong both biblically and logically, I don't need to explain it any further. It affects others involved negatively, it's simple really.

 

Yes you're saved by grace or unmerited favor, a lot of people are a lot of things. Don't lump me with those who you have seem claim Christianity.

 

Oh I've seen how you've explained it biblically. I've yet to see how you've logically explained it. But then again, you feel as though you've 'logically' explained the fate of the sun, and thus the age of the universe. Please, have another try.

Why aren't you pushing to have a constitutional amendment against cross dressing?

 

You don't get to deny a group of people their rights as citizens (Which is what banning gay marriage does) because of your conviction if you aren't going to be consistent in it.

 

 

Because it's a choice and because being a Christian doesn't mean I push to have things to be changed, the Bible asks that you follow what it says but obviously those who don't believe it don't follow that idea. Everything in the Bible was put there by a God breathed man who saw a perfect man that walked the Earth meaning that most likely there were logical reasons to their writing as well.

Because it's a choice

 

 

If it were a choice, nobody would choose it. Sorry, but if you were to use logic there that'd be clear. Nobody wants to be oppressed like that.

 

Everything in the Bible was put there by a God breathed man who saw a perfect man that walked the Earth meaning that most likely there were logical reasons to their writing as well.

 

 

Most likely? Sounds like you're uncertain.

It should also be known our founding fathers wrote the constitution based largely on Christian beliefs.

 

Interestingly enough John Adams

 

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature.

 

 

 

Twenty times in the course of my late reading have I been on the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion at all!!!" But in this exclamation I would have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean hell.