The odds of our solar system being capable of supporting life as we know it is somewhere on the order of 10^270,000. This from things like the formation of our moon, the right kind of star, the right planets in the right formations to protect us from asteroids, the right distance from a galactic core, the right oscillation through the galactic plane.I'd say that, in a universe that is as close to infinite as you can possibly get, any event which has a non-zero probability will eventually occur.

There are over 2000 prophecies concerning the suffering (first coming) messiah in the Old Testament, and these are specific prophecies like "He will be born in Bethelaham" and "He will never break a bone" and "He will be pierced for our transgressions". Of these, nearly all can be confirmed to have been fulfilled by extra-biblical records. The odds of anyone fulfilling that many detailed prophecies made before their birth are roughly 10^440.
But how many WRONG prophecies were there? And how many of these prophecies had ALL of the relevant information? Was there one which said "He'll be born in Bethlehem", while the rest of the prophecy was way off the mark? Also, those last two are ambigous enough to fit more than one scenario. You're not taking into account the mythological component of Jesus, either. I doubt the Bible has the pure skinny on ol' JC. They'd want to make him seem as flawless and godlike as possible. If there was one prophecy which said, "His name will be Jesus Christ, He'll be born in Bethlehem, he'll teach people about how nice it'd be if everyone was nice to each other, and he'll die when the Romans nail him to a plank of wood", then I'd concede this point, but the evidence you're putting forward is speculative, anecdotal, or up to interpretation.

Can't cite any of these, but there was just a case this past May in Ohio State? about a college validictorian being cut off in the middle of her speach for mentioning God (i.e. thanking Him). The most recent school that tried to keep the christian club out was in Nevada. So you've got two examples. Well, three including the sports team thing. Not exactly representative of the system as a whole, is it?

[ October 17, 2006, 13:21: Message edited by: Clixby ]

you also forget, There is no tale about jesus birth in the Marcus evangelion, which is the oldest of the four evangelions about Jesus life. Marcus wrote it 30 years after jesus death, the second oldest is Evangelion about Jesus life is the Lucas evangelion written almost 70years after Jesus death, this is the first of the evangelions to take in Jesus Birth, the fun part about jesus birth time, is it accures on the same Date as the god of one of the other popular cults at this time, whoes name currently escapes me (its mith something, ill look it up).
the other thing is, his birth is strangely similiar, they are both born from a virgin, at the time of a heathen winter festival.

I find it strange that for the first 100years, Christians did not find Jesus Birth relevant, then they become an institution in "war" with another religion that has a birth story about there savior "bam" Jesus has a birth story, strangely similiar to that.

Edit: and NOG could you please provide some qoutes from these prophesies or a aproxemation of book/chapter where I can find them. I dont recall reading does, so it would be fun to look them over. thanks in advance.

Mithra? He is an old Indo-European god. God of bonds and oath, the eternal friend. Lots of similarity there in the Mithraism cult that the Romans semi adopted, semi developed on their own. That's what you're talking about Equester, I'm sure.

thanks Nataraja, that was exactly what i was babbling about, was about to call him mithrandir at a point, never been good with names.

You're welcome. I knew Mithra/Mitra was an Asura and that his worship was extremely popular in the Roman Legions. Nearly everything ritualistic and ceremonial concerning Christianity traces its roots back to the worship of Mithra, an Asura...a being that is opposed to the Deva in the Vedas. Asura are basically demons of some sorts, but not really, since theyre god-like, only they aren't fit to rule or be worshiped or something. I think it's something to do with two different pantheons in Indo-European religion, the Asura/Ahura/Aesir and the Deva etc. Yep, so basically Mitra/Mithra is a demon sorta guy. Nice going, Christianity ;)

That was very interesting post :thumb:

But how many WRONG prophecies were there? Good point, because you only ever hear about the prophecies that came true.

@Clixby:
I'd say that, in a universe that is as close to infinite as you can possibly get, any event which has a non-zero probability will eventually occur.
Except that our universe doesn't seem to be infinite. Quite to the contrary, there seems to be a perfectly finite amount of mass, and thus a perfectly finite number of star-systems and galaxies.

But how many WRONG prophecies were there? None. There were some that could not be confirmed by extra-biblical records, like the Virgin Birth, and others that spoke of the conquering Messiah (second coming) that haven't come true yet, but none were wrong, and all were specific enough that they could be proven wrong if they were, unlike prophecies from figures like Nostradamus.

And how many of these prophecies had ALL of the relevant information? Was there one which said "He'll be born in Bethlehem", while the rest of the prophecy was way off the mark? Also, those last two are ambigous enough to fit more than one scenario. None of them were totally specific. Even teh one that specifies His town of birth doesn't say when, or what part of town, or to whom, or what the circumstances would be. Others speak to some of these things, but no one prophecy details everything. Likewise, there are prophecies that could describe more than one thing, but still a very limited number. For example "He was pierced for our transgressions" describes piercing as part of His death, but not what kind of piercing. Also, there is one that He will be hung on a 'tree', but that could mean hanging, impaling, or crucifiction. It could not mean being devoured by lions, however, nor being be-headed. Likewise, hanging would not normally involve piercing. There were many people that met one or even two or three of these. No doubt there were other people born in Bethelehem that died from piercing wounds, or were somehow pierced as part of their death, but how many were descendants of David, never broke a bone in their body, and were hung on a 'tree' as part of their death? And that's just combining 5 prophecies.

You're not taking into account the mythological component of Jesus, either. I doubt the Bible has the pure skinny on ol' JC. They'd want to make him seem as flawless and godlike as possible. Yes I am, that's why the people who calculated the odds only considered prophecies that the person could not control themselves (like the town of their birth) and ones that could be confirmed by extra-biblical records (such as the Roman Census confirming Jesus was born in Bethelehem).

If there was one prophecy which said, "His name will be Jesus Christ, He'll be born in Bethlehem, he'll teach people about how nice it'd be if everyone was nice to each other, and he'll die when the Romans nail him to a plank of wood", then I'd concede this point, but the evidence you're putting forward is speculative, anecdotal, or up to interpretation. You seem to be arguing that each prophecy has to be considered seperately and independantly, which is nonsense.

@Equester:
you also forget, There is no tale about jesus birth in the Marcus evangelion, which is the oldest of the four evangelions about Jesus life. Marcus wrote it 30 years after jesus death, the second oldest is Evangelion about Jesus life is the Lucas evangelion written almost 70years after Jesus death, this is the first of the evangelions to take in Jesus Birth There is still a lot of debate over when the different books were written, but only the most sceptical of estimates places any of them being written around 100AD. Most place the writing of Matthew, Mark, and Luke somewhere between the early 50's AD (about 20 years after Jesus's death) to the late 60's AD (40 years after Jesus's death). John was probably written last, somewhere between 70 and 85 AD.

the fun part about jesus birth time, is it accures on the same Date as the god of one of the other popular cults at this time, whoes name currently escapes me Actually, the rough date of birth comes from a Roman Census, which was taken about that time. Again, extra-biblical records, so this isn't mythology.

I find it strange that for the first 100years, Christians did not find Jesus Birth relevant, then they become an institution in "war" with another religion that has a birth story about there savior "bam" Jesus has a birth story, strangely similiar to that.
Again, probably wrong dates. The birth story of Jesus is probably first recorded somewhere between 50 and 70 AD, 30 to 50 years before your date and conflict.

Edit: and NOG could you please provide some qoutes from these prophesies or a aproxemation of book/chapter where I can find them. I dont recall reading does, so it would be fun to look them over. thanks in advance. They're spread all throughout the Prophets, but there are a lot in Daniel and Isaiah. Micah 5:2 talks about the town of birth. Isaiah 7:14 talks about the Virgin Birth, though virginity can't be confirmed by extra-biblical records. Psalms 22 16-18 talk about His death. This site (http://www.neverthirsty.org/pp/proph/main.html) covers 31 prophecies in detail, and gives a specific probability for those 31 along with a nice analogy to give you some idea what that probability entails.

@Nataraja:
You seem to have Mithra a bit mixed up. Mithra was part of the Ahuric Triad, supposed to preserve order in the Universe. His domain was humanity, thus the popularity of his worship. He was also the only one created by Ahura Mazda that is worthy of worship and sacrifice, but I can't find anything about a virgin birth. That may be my failing, though. Anyway, there doesn't seem to be anything about his sacrifice, or his being tempted, or a ritualized eating of him, or him saving souls of the living from destruction, though he was apparently entrusted with escorting the souls of the dead to paradise. Anyway, kind of hit and miss on that one. There are also people that have compared Jesus to Osiris, with about equal success.

None. You can't know that. You weren't there when they were all making the predictions. You have no idea how many whacky predictions never made it into the final version you've got now......

"I predict that one day, people will pay lots of money to people for televisions, just to watch other useless people sing and then pay more money to vote for the ones they want to see sing next week!"

"You idiot! We're not going to put that one in. That will never happen. Get back to your camel, Simon"

Edit: Sorry, getting a bit off-topic. Back to homosexuality and religion.

You can't know that. You weren't there when they were all making the predictions. You have no idea how many whacky predictions never made it into the final version you've got now......
Well, I was talking prophecies in the Bible, and since we've already covered the topic of 'changes to the Bible', I think your comment is more or less moot. So yes, I can say none.

EDIT:
Wow, we really are off topic.

Except that our universe doesn't seem to be infinite. That's why I said, "as close to infinite as you can possibly get". there's more matter in our own galaxy than we can possibly measure, and there are more galaxies in the universe than we can possibly measure. And in this scenario, anything which can happen almost invariably will happen.

You seem to be arguing that each prophecy has to be considered seperately and independantly, which is nonsense.yes, that's exactly what I'm arguing. You could take separate bits from about 2000 prophecies and use it to prophecise the coming of Jack Nicholson, if you put your mind to it. if there was one prophecy which accurately foretold the coming of the Messiah, then I'd concede your point. But there hasn't been. it's just a rickety framework of interpretations.

I don't know how this got so derailed. I just wanted to point out that stuff that God clearly said in the Bible has been contradicted by fact, wither showing that bits of the Bible was written by ultimately infallible humans, who decided to impose their own morals on the texts (HINT HINT), or that God's a big liar.

So, if most of the Leviticus stuff was the laws of Israel, why are they in a book that's just supposed to be stuff God told us to do? or is that these laws were passed down by God to the people of Israel, but weren't supposed to apply to anywhere else? help me out here.

This is great and all but what does it have to do with homosexuality?

@NOG...No, I don't have Mithra mixed up. I never said that Jesus was cognate with Mithra, I said that most of the ceremonial practices and ritualistic practices are traced back to that religion, Mithraism - a secret exclusive religion. Although it shares a commonality with Mithra, it is completely distinct from Zoroastrian religion. Same with the Osiris cult so prevelant in Roman times, which too was a different cult than the true worship of Osiris was. They merely used names of ancient gods for their secret religious practices.

The ahura class of deities is the same as the aesir class of deities and also the same as the asura class of deities. In Proto-Indo-Iranian religion, there were two sets of gods; the Asura and the Deva. Those peoples who migrated to what is now Iran - the Medes and Persians of the Bible - they venerated the Asura and it became Ahura due to shifts in the language over time (hence Hind becomes Sind etc). Those who ended up in what is now India worshipped the Deva. Over time the Iranians viewed Deva as being demons of darkness, and the Indians viewed the Asura/Ahura as being nothing more than power-hungry unworthy false gods.

It was due to the Iranian religion, which predates
Zarathustra himself, that Judaism developed a distinct 'light vs dark' cosmology during their captivity in Babylon.

I thought all of this was common knowledge...

This is great and all but what does it have to do with homosexuality? Because if the laws were made by men rather than god, thereby having only subjective moral value, there would be no justification for trying to force them on others.

You're right, but try and convince the fundamentalists here that. They don't want to admit that their faith isn't as solid as they want it to be. It's sad really.

We always seem to get off topic because of the problems with these laws that were written down 4000 years ago that don't always apply to our lives the way they applied to nomadic desert dwellers in 2000 BCE.

Being made by a god isn't a justifiable reason in itself for forcing a law on others, especially if they don't believe in said god.

I wake up every day thanking fate that I live in a country where religion is the last thing politicians consider when passing a law.

Homosexuality and birthcontrol were banned in the Republic of Ireland because of religion (in my lifetime!) so it was ironic that peope fled accross the border to Ulster to avoid persecution. Now that the Republic is more secular, people are free to practice their religions and be with someone of the same sex. Now they need to make abortion legal to be a completely free society.

I just don't think anyone really cares about religion here in NZ. I mean, we had that 'Bishop' Tamaki guy with his Christian party and church that did some protests and rallies, and he claimed that homosexuality was destroying family values. And then he predicted to win an election with his conservative fundamentalist party...and boy was he wrong, he barely made a dint in the elections. Didn't even get a seat in parliament.

And how exactly is homosexuality destroying family values? If two homosexual people want to get married and raise children, how is the family being un-valued? If anything, allowing homosexual couples to marry and raise kids is promoting family values.

In some ways I am sad that NZ politians are so unmotivated by religion when passing laws, since it will mean they certainly wont pass marijuana decriminalization laws for people whose religion invloves ritualistic pot smoking. And, yes, mine does...Lord Shiva smokes chronic and meditates on Mt. Kalish for thousands of years, and then sometimes he gets up and smites some evil or dances up a blissful storm...and then he sits back down again to smoke and meditate. My God is so much cooler than the Christian god ;)

@Clixby:
That's why I said, "as close to infinite as you can possibly get". there's more matter in our own galaxy than we can possibly measure, and there are more galaxies in the universe than we can possibly measure. And in this scenario, anything which can happen almost invariably will happen.
You're making a very stretching approximation here, and we're dealing with probability numbers where it can be dangerous. As long as there is a finite number of solar systems, there are probability levels higher than that. The question is, is this one of them.

On a side note, we can measure the mass of our galaxy, and we have (to a rough estimate) by the gravitational effects. We've estimated the masses of other galaxies, too. We even have a ball-park on the number of galaxies (assuming the quazars are the edge of the expanding universe, as they seem to be) and the number of star-systems in each. Now all these are rough numbers, and there's no guarantee we're right, but they are educated guesses.

yes, that's exactly what I'm arguing. You could take separate bits from about 2000 prophecies and use it to prophecise the coming of Jack Nicholson, if you put your mind to it. if there was one prophecy which accurately foretold the coming of the Messiah, then I'd concede your point. But there hasn't been. it's just a rickety framework of interpretations. Ok, one, there is little interpretation (context) involved in these. I won't say none, but what there is has been pretty solidly nailed down. Lets not get into context again, please.

Two, the idea that these are complimentary prophecies, i.e. they all concern the same person, means that you CAN combine them and consider the probability and accuracy as a whole. The accuracy is 100%, and the probablity was given above.

@Ab:
This was all in response to the 'heavy evidence that the universe was planned' comment I made. It has no direct connection at all, but seems to be covering some similar topics (i.e. context).

@Nataraja:
It was due to the Iranian religion, which predates
Zarathustra himself, that Judaism developed a distinct 'light vs dark' cosmology during their captivity in Babylon.
If you mean the 'good vs evil' philosophy, then that developed far before their captivity in Babylon. If you mean the 'light=good and dark=evil' idea, I'm not sure where that developed, but I'm pretty sure it was after Babylon. Throughout the Old Testament, light is seen as the divine mercy of God and darkness as the divine judgement of God, and this includes the books of the prophets written during and after their captivity in Babylon. The 'light=good and dark=evil' idea doesn't seem to surface until the New Testament, written several hundred years after the last of the OT.

We always seem to get off topic because of the problems with these laws that were written down 4000 years ago that don't always apply to our lives the way they applied to nomadic desert dwellers in 2000 BCE. And now who's picking and choosing?
1.) These laws were not given to a group of 'nomadic desert dwellers', but a people on the run who continued to use them long after they had established a flourishing civilization.
2.) How many of these laws are still applicable today? Murder? Theft? Purgery? Incest? These are things that apply to humanity as a whole, regardless of your civilization.

@Cuchulainn:
Now they need to make abortion legal to be a completely free society. Hold it, hasn't the standard always been not harming others or interfering with their rights? Nevermind, you probably don't consider the foetus a living being or some such nonsense.

we had that 'Bishop' Tamaki guy with his Christian party and church that did some protests and rallies, and he claimed that homosexuality was destroying family values. His credibility hit rock bottom when he stormed parliament with his mob of black t-shirt, black boot wearing, work shy layabouts yelling "Enough is Enough". At least the religious people on these Boards take the time to provide explanations for their beliefs. Tamaki's peasant army had too many echos of jackboot wearing Nazi fanatics for my liking.

His credibility hit rock bottom when he...He had credibility full-stop? :confused:

He was one of those evangelical religious nuts who had a show on TV at about 10:00am (the time where most sane people are at work) and he only tarnished the Christian image by making the public think that Christianity was a religion whose sole purpose was the condemnation and eradication of homosexuality. Rather than spending their money trying to save children dieing from disease and malnourishment they would spend it on rallies to protest against homosexuality.

Yeah, he was preaching about 'family values' yet his protest mob was full of kids. If kids are so important, shouldn't they have been at school?!

Homosexuality and Religion - that's the topic and let's all try to vaguely hit it in our posts. Under no circumstances do I want to see any debate about abortion here.

Bishop Tamaki should have gone into stand-up comedy. What a joke...

You mean to say he wasn't a stand up comedian?! I thought that was always the point of having a large, expensive house and then preeching from a book that claims "No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money." (Mathew 6:24)

Jumping back a page or so...
The more religion is ignored, the more they try to get their voices heard. Piss poor democracy where such groups are brushed aside if you ask me...So Gnarf, it's alright for religous groups to want their voices heard but not homosexuals? Piss poor democracy where such groups are brushed aside, if you ask me...

Except that our universe doesn't seem to be infinite. Quite to the contrary, there seems to be a perfectly finite amount of mass, and thus a perfectly finite number of star-systems and galaxies.If we bring in alternative or parrellel universes (which is just as valid as a God) then we can have infinite. And it can also be used to explain those remote possibilities that you mentioned on the previous page.

Indeed there is a finite amount of mass (it will never increase) yet the size of the universe is infinite. And yes I stand by that the universe is infinite the same way that a Christian can believe that God is real. I see no end to the universe so frankly I believe there isn't one. I think the idea of there being an end to the univserse is harder to fathom than the universe being infinite, actually.

Yeah, I know, off-topic, sorry.

Let's ban Christians from getting married and disallow them from raising children. Obviously they aren't suited to the task, they believe in this great big invisible man, they're deluded and a delusional person is a danger to their children and their spouse.

Since Christians can freely quote from their scripture, surely I can too.

"Those who know that the duration of creation lasts 4.32 billion years and that the duration of destruction also lasts 4.32 billion years, they are the knowers of the cycles of creation and destruction. (8.17)" - Lord Krishna to Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita

"All beings merge into My primary material Nature at the end of a cycle of just over 311 trillion solar years, O Arjuna, and I create them again at the beginning of the next cycle. (9.07)" - Again, Lord Krishna to Arjuna

"An enlightened person - by perceiving God in all - looks at a learned person, an outcast, even a cow, an elephant, or a dog with an equal eye. (5.18)" - And again...

"One must elevate - and not degrade - oneself by one’s own mind. The mind alone is one’s friend as well as one’s enemy. The mind is the friend of those who have control over it, and the mind acts like an enemy for those who do not control it. (6.05-06)" - Again...

So there's the answer to both the universe and homosexual questions...the universe is incredibly ancient and people should look at each other with the same eye, and not judge each other.

There are other verses in other Hindu scriptures that say that the entire energy of the universe is in a constant flux between expanded state and compressed state. At the moment we are experiencing the expanded state of matter, and when the universe falls back in on itself, it will be the compressed state of matter. Then, eventually that compressed state of matter will expand - hence the big bang - and then the universe will do what it does again. This will happen a total of 100 times, and then that is the end of this universe entirely - both its compressed and expanded states. At the moment I think we are in the 7th of the expansion things. I really should find these texts, theyre around somewhere...

All the Vedas and other texts are so superior to the Bible in knowledge, wisdom and just plain common sense.

All the Vedas and other texts are so superior to the Bible in knowledge, wisdom and just plain common sense. Oh no! You made a sweeping statement against Christianity... Waaaaaait for it.

Hold it, hasn't the standard always been not harming others or interfering with their rights? Nevermind, you probably don't consider the foetus a living being or some such nonsense. Since it has even less brain activity and awareness of self then animals, its hardly human, so like most people, i dont consider it a living human, i cant deny its living, but hell so was the steak im eating at some point. But thats a discusion for another thread.

Regarding does prophecise, i sat down and read them. some of them are not even prophecise, just bible qoutes, others of them first appear in maetheus, now work with me, Maetheus writes his version of Jesus life roughly 100 years after jesus death, he has never met Jesus, he has never heard Jesus preaching, he has 3th party stories or even further away stories, he has Marcus envangelion and does evengelions that didn't made it into the bible, put down in the year 300, And he has one more tool, the old testemony...magicaly Jesus opholds some of the prophecies about the savior...

oh and i still find it very dodgy that the Bible holds no evangelion written by anyone who actually met jesus, even though we know they exist.
(the stories in The davinci code and holy blood/holy gral, are fictions build on the discovory of the Thomas Evangelion)

Thirdly NOG you seem to be picking and choosing laws, i meen you say the laws in the bible are for all, but the laws in levitus is only for isreal (which you still havent proven) except does of sex which is for all

2.) How many of these laws are still applicable today? Murder? Theft? Purgery? Incest? These are things that apply to humanity as a whole, regardless of your civilization.
Actually in south america there are several indian tribes that practise a form of incest as a rite. male boys suck the seemen of men, to gain some of thier strength. but offtopic.
Does basic laws, are just basically Human laws. just like animals have some very semiliar basic animal laws.
so whats your point in qouting god forbad murder! So did most societies without the help of god, its piss easy, most people dont like getting killed randomly.
theft, again back in the old days, theft was often as bad as murder, you steal my money, i die of hunger, you steal my food, i die and so on, didn't take to much time to forbid that.
Incest is harder, but most societies had a minimum age for males and females, simply becouse they knew there was an age of maturity, but back then in many societies children could get married away anyhows. but again, there is nothing divine in these laws, just basic human logic.

You're right, it's as I've said before...morality is contextual. It's common sense, and every culture has a different 'common sense' in nearly every respect.

People need to realise that life as we know it is a relatively recent phenomenon, and that for 99.9...% of human history, life was not the way it is now. Things were not better in the past, things were hard, rough and not pleasant. Life is very mild in comparisson with what it was like the past.

Christians should be allowed to practice their religion, but they have no right to tell people who they should and shouldn't marry. Its none of their business.

A little off topic:

NOG are you going to tell women that have been raped that they have no right to an abortion because its against your religion? Is it even any of your business what a woman does with her body?

True, everyone is entitled to practice their own religion...but no one group should have precidence over what others - even those who are not of the same religious group - should do or say or act...

Nataraja, I'm glad to see you here, if only because I can pass the non-interference torch your way and stop banging my own head against the brick wall of fundamentalism here. :deadhorse: :bang:

Welcome! :wave:

Christians should be allowed to practice their religion, but they have no right to tell people who they should and shouldn't marry. Its none of their business. Well, actually, they can do that - provided you are speaking of marriage in the religious sense. Any religious following can decide who does and who does not meet criteria for marriage in their religion. For example, since my wife and I have never practiced Islam, it would be entirely reasonable for an imam to refuse to perform a religious wedding ceremony for my wife and I. The point I'm making is if a certain group will not marry homosexuals, I think it is within that religion's rights to tell their following that.

Furthermore, if gay marriage is ever legalized, and two gay Christians get married in a civil ceremony, it is almost assured that their marriage will not be recognized by their church. I further think that the church is well within their rights on this point too.

Finally, I don't want to want this post to sound like gay-bashing. I'm not anti-gay, and I'm not even a religous person. The last time I set foot into a church was when my brother got married in a church a couple of years ago. That being said, I'm not anti-religion either. I believe in the doctrine of freedom of religion, and following from that, I feel that religions can chose to establish whatever rule set they wish on those that subscribe to that faith.

Since they don't MAKE you belong to that church, if you find yourself at odds with the rules imposed by your church, perhaps it is time to look for a different denomination that is more in step with your beliefs. To put it another way, I do not think the onus should be on the church to change their practices to confrom to the congregation. They have every right to say, "These are the rules" with membership in that church contingent upon you following those rules.

I think I may have been misunderstood...

Church is not the only option you know. Gays should be entitled to marriage that is recognised by the law.

Sorry Cuch. That's why I said "provided you are speaking of marriage in the religious sense". I had assumed that because in the U.S., there is currently very little hope of getting homosexual "marriage" recognized by law (with Massachusetts being a noteworthy exception). However, I think the odds for getting civil unions approved are a little better (but still not good) in the more immediate future. I agree that if you're talking about civil unions, then no, the church has no place in those discussions.

Marriage doesn't need to involve a church. If it did, then how what about the majority of marriage's done in the world that don't take place in churches. It would make all traditional wedding customs invalid.

Marriage is the outward declaration that you want to join with another person whom you love in a commited relationship...or something similar along those lines. Christianity doesn't have the monopoly on marriage or marriage customs, and it never has and it never will.

I do agree with you Aldeth. I don't think the church should have to marry gays if its against its policy (for lack of a better term).

@Nataraja,

I agree. My previous post simply stated that if you are speaking of marriage in the religious sense, then a religion has the right to decide who can and cannot get married under their rules. For many religions, it's sacramental or the equivalent for non-Christian religions. I agree that there are a great many marriages that are conducted by non-denominational ministers, and Jusitces of the Peace. Neither of these are religious weddings, but are equally valid in the eyes of the law.

However, it also doesn't make sense to say that there is a complete disconnect between marriage and religion either. For a great many people, it is important for them to find a life partner who shares his or her religious values. And I don't mean that just in a general sense. For some people, it's not good enough for both of them to be, for example, Christian, but of the same sub group, such as both Catholics, or both Mormons, or both Baptists, etc. Taken in that light, marriage is more than the outward declaration that you want to join with another person whom you love in a commited relationship.

I'm also skeptical when you say that the majority of the world's weddings do not take place in churches, unless you literally mean Christian churches. If you include temples, synagogues, and other places of worship, I'm inclined to believe that the majority of the world's weddings do take place under the auspices of some religion, with a great many of them taking places at some center of worship.

I'll admit to not having read the entire thread (12 pages is a bit much at this time of night)....but I just feel like voice-ing my opinion on the subject that began this thread...

In my opinion, religion has its rights to its views of Homosexuality, just as I have a my rights to disagree with it...I personally find nothing wrong with it, and would fully support any of my friends who would wish to engage in homosexual relations/marriages...

Religion, which I'll admit to not knowing huge amounts about, is a somewhat interpretive affair...people interpret what was written hundreds upon thousands of years ago, in a different language, that has been translated several times before we get to today...and in my opinion I think it may have lost some of its meaning in that time...Every person to have translated it has given a personal inflection on it, even without intent...

To be honest I don't know where I'm going with this, but its just something I keep in mind when thinking about religious beliefs...they have their right to think what they think, just as we can disagree with them. Yet in my opinion they only have a right to express this dis-satisfaction, and I do not think they should be able to exercise any force beyond their religion (which as far as I know they can't)...people who follow a religion make a choice to agree with what is being said by their religion, and also have a choice to stop believing if they so desire...

Just my opinion.

I think that for homosexual marriages it's more that they want their union to have the same rights as a heterosexual union. They don't necessarily want to impose on any religion, they just want to have the same protection from the law when the relationship ends, and other things that marriage has. It doesn't even have to be 'marriage' in the sense that we all think, it could be a special recognition that entitles them to the same rights.

I always thought I was doomed to never be married, and that would let my family down...however, I've fallen inlove with a woman, suprise suprise...and when I'm with her I can't even stomach my past, or even looking at another man like I used to.

I still believe in the 'born gay' thing. However, I feel that anyone can fall inlove with anyone. It's about love, not about sex.

Nice to see I don't miss much when I have trouble with my internet connection for a couple days. Basically poeple that don't like Christianity sayiong that I'm full of it for claiming that Marriage is a religious ordinance. Rather insulting that the best you can do is to say that I'm wrong and think that's good enough.

But a couple things on this last page I need to respond to...

Let's ban Christians from getting married and disallow them from raising children. Obviously they aren't suited to the task, they believe in this great big invisible man, they're deluded and a delusional person is a danger to their children and their spouse.So Christians are mentally ill? Man have you got your facts wrong. The biggest danger to a child is that they be raised with no overriding sense of morality (and that's what I pick up from the "Who says your morality is better than anyone else's" arguement)...

"An enlightened person - by perceiving God in all - looks at a learned person, an outcast, even a cow, an elephant, or a dog with an equal eye. (5.18)" Joseph Smith Translation of Matthew 7:1:

Now these are the words which Jesus Taught his disciples that they should say unto his people. Judge not unrighteously, that ye be not judged: but judge righteous judgement.

Basically, we have the laws, and that is how we are judged. We are, barring some condition of reduced accountability, equal before the bar of justice. The law of God is the same before us all.

One must elevate - and not degrade - oneself by one’s own mind. The mind alone is one’s friend as well as one’s enemy. The mind is the friend of those who have control over it, and the mind acts like an enemy for those who do not control it.By our sins, we degrade ourselves, whether we perceive this or not. Also, the Book of Mormon has a quote that is relevent to this regard:

Mosiah 3:19:

For the Natural man is an enemy to God, and has been so since the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteh off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ our Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.

Basically, through obedience, we elevate ourselves. We seek to emulate the example of one who was perfect--Jesus the Christ.

All the Vedas and other texts are so superior to the Bible in knowledge, wisdom and just plain common sense.And what do you have to be smoking to make sense out of them?

they just want to have the same protection from the law when the relationship ends,Common Law relationships have had to seek those legal answers, and in some cases, it's just as complicated as a divirce. Couldn't those laws extend to Homosexual relationships?

I've fallen inlove with a woman, suprise suprise...and when I'm with her I can't even stomach my past, or even looking at another man like I used to.A mighty change of heart, perhaps? I believe that God gives all who face such challenges that same opportunity that you have been given.

I still believe in the 'born gay' thing. However, I feel that anyone can fall inlove with anyone. It's about love, not about sex.Sexual relations and temptations involve powerful emotions. Those of you who are married or engaged to be so may be able to back me up on this or correct me on this, but I think that those emotions are hard to distinguish. It's not about choosing who you are tempted by, but who you covenent with and how you honour those covenents.

What do you have to be smoking to make sense of anything Joseph Smith made up?

Mosiah 3:19:

For the Natural man is an enemy to God, and has been so since the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteh off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ our Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.

Basically, through obedience, we elevate ourselves. We seek to emulate the example of one who was perfect--Jesus the Christ.
Blind obidience makes you a slave of outdated laws, made by man. remember you only have their words for it being divine.

Secondly there are two forms of marriages, does made by a religius institution, for example the christian church, now does marriages are recognised by the state and gives certain rights, as does any other major religions marriages, then there is the state marriages, which without any religion involved does the same. Anybody regarding of faith or lack of the same can be married by the state and get the advantages that follows (several countries has cheaper insurences and so on if you are married) and it is only the last form of marriage we want to be legal for gays, well that and more sensible religions that dont mind people being gay.

So no one is touching the christian marriage or forcing gay people into your church. as long as you accept that your religion does not rule the country and therefor can not forbid gays to get a State marriage.

(Note: this was mainly ment on countries who hasn't got these basic rights for gays yet, my country does and surprisingly we havent seen a moral decline)

So Christians are mentally ill? Man have you got your facts wrong. The biggest danger to a child is that they be raised with no overriding sense of moralitySo while I was being raised I was exposed to the 'biggest danger' ever? Having parents who didn't teach me to worship God and who themselves did not worship? Because that's obviously the most important thing we can teach our children and things such as acceptance, compassion, rational thinking and a 'live and let live' attitude take the back seat.

Christians being mentally ill... in some regards, yes. They actually think there's this great big invisible man who is watching your every move and you must do as he says because if you don't you will go to hell and burn and suffer and be tortured for all eternity!... but he loves you. And the only proof of this is some 2000 year old book written by men.

Let's ban Christians from getting married and disallow them from raising children. Obviously they aren't suited to the task, they believe in this great big invisible man, they're deluded and a delusional person is a danger to their children and their spouse.So Christians are mentally ill? Man have you got your facts wrong.What about those Christians who literally believe the Earth to be 6000 years old or Adam and Eve being first humans?

That in itself is interesting considering recorded human history goes back at least 10, 000 years...nevermind unrecorded human history which goes back more than 100, 000 years.

What do you have to be smoking to make sense of anything Joseph Smith made up?Nothing. It didn't really make sense until I stopped smoking the funny stuff. Secondly, it's not made up, regardless of what anyone says here.

Blind obidience makes you a slave of outdated laws, made by man. remember you only have their words for it being divine.I know you must not read most of my posts, but you seem to have missed the part where I have repeatedly claimed that my faith is anything but blind. You only have my word for it's divinity because you will not test it in prayer for the possibility that I might not be stringing you a line only tio laugh at you when you do it.

nevermind unrecorded human history which goes back more than 100, 000 years. First off, there is no reference in the Book of Genesis that it was 2000 years from Adam and Eve to the Grat Flood. Secondly, I couldn't find a reference to say that it was 2000 years from the flood to the birth of Christ.

Third, How do we get AD if there was no Christ? Doesn;t that refer to After Christ?

Fourth, if the history is unrecorded, how do we know it really happenned? The presence of the Bible as a record of hte people gives me a bit more credibility in this case, doesn't it?

Fifth, Any attempts to reconcile the Creation with other things that Science has taught has yielded little other than ridicule. I suspect that some of you are less interested in intelligent debate and more interested in entertaining yourselves at my expense. Get a life...

First off, there is no reference in the Book of Genesis that it was 2000 years from Adam and Eve to the Grat Flood. Secondly, I couldn't find a reference to say that it was 2000 years from the flood to the birth of Christ. we know the age of each and everyone in the bible, because they where so kind throught the first testomony to write "and xxx lived to he was yyy old, then he died" or they add, this happened when zzz happened over there, much like greek historiens did.

So scholars around the world, have for fun or whatever reasons they have, counted the years, which im off the top of my head gives, some 4000years of historie before christ

Third, How do we get AD if there was no Christ? Doesn;t that refer to After Christ? this one made me laugh, come on, even you must be able to see that just because we make a timeline out from an event from the dominent religion at that time, dosn't make the religion right.
and the only reason this calender is used around the world, is again because currently our civilization is dominant.
Muslim, jews, chinese, japans and so on, has actually different calenders based on thier believes.
you might as well say the easterbunny is real, else we wouldn't have easter.

Fourth, if the history is unrecorded, how do we know it really happenned? The presence of the Bible as a record of hte people gives me a bit more credibility in this case, doesn't it? reread what he said, we have 10.000 years of recorded history, dating some 5-6000 years further back then the bible.
babylons, egypts, chinese people, just to name some, have recorded history way before the bible timeframe.
secondly the undrecorded history is based on archeology, we have dated human remains 100.000years back, which is way further back then the bible goes.

Fifth, Any attempts to reconcile the Creation with other things that Science has taught has yielded little other than ridicule. I suspect that some of you are less interested in intelligent debate and more interested in entertaining yourselves at my expense. Get a life... get over yourself mate, your the one who havent been able to give a good explanation for the whole 7 days roughly 6000 years ago, while science has proven the earth to be several million years old.
Creative periods? a word christians invented some 30years ago, because they had to find somekind of explanation with science proving the bible wrong.
cant cope with facts? go hide behind your bible, but please be quite while you do so.

The city of Jericho was founded at least 10, 000 years ago and has been settled ever since, with each new city building its foundations on the previous city and so on.

However, during the time that Joshua and his people were entering Canaan, they have found that Jericho suffered some destruction and its walls had fallen out, not in, which would happen during an earthquake. Other dating of the entrance into Canaan isn't so clear cut. Certain cities that were said to have been destroyed weren't, and some had been destroyed long before, while others still weren't destroyed at all.

Recorded human history, written down, goes back at least 10, 000 years. Unrecorded history goes back at least 100, 000 years. The age of the earth is not something that is in dispute here, nor the age of the universe. Both are incredibly ancient and it is a scientific fact that the world is older than Genesis claims it to be.

This is yet another reason to doubt the Bible as being 100% accurate, and if it is not 100% accurate, then it's decree about homosexuality could quite possibly be a mistake or added later by someone. That isn't to say that there is no goodness about the Bible, because it is a good book, and a lot of what it says is relevent to us...some things are timeless, such as stories of love and stories of how selfish people end up losing. But it should not be taken as 100% literal, because if that was the case, then you would have to take every single verse as being literal.

Gnarf, you need to take a critical rationalist perspective of things. Not everyone is a Christian, not everyone is a Latter-day Saint, and people have differing views on things. Just because you believe the Bible, as far as it's translated correctly I might add, and also the Joseph Smith books as being authorative, it doesn't mean that anyone else will. Not everyone here takes the Bhagavad Gita as being authorative, not even I do, however, it is still a good book with valuable lessons. But that nonsense about Krishna being God...pffft, we all know Shiva is God ;)

Third, How do we get AD if there was no Christ? Doesn't that refer to After Christ? Is Christ spelt with a D?

AD stands for Anno Domini. And it doesn't prove Christianity right. It's just that the Christians were the best at forcing everyone else to use their calendar.

I suspect that some of you are less interested in intelligent debate and more interested in entertaining yourselves at my expense. Get a life... Ah, telling your opponents to "get a life", the mark of the truly masterful arguer. All I can see is that people are questioning your justification for your beliefs, and you don't like that because it brings up old doubts.

Good old doubt...the faith killer...

Gnarf, it's perfectly fine to doubt your beliefs. I doubt my beliefs quite regularly, and I allow them to change with new evidence that arises. Stagnant beliefs lead to a stagnant mind.

Gnarf, as an innocent bystander that just tumbled in this thread by a wayward link...and being a former Mormon myself...I can clearly see that you've got the typical Utah Mormon mindset going on. While you're intentions are good, you're actually driving more people away from the church than drawing them closer. Calm down, take a breath, and realize that the LDS church is just one of dozens and dozens of beliefs, mainstream religions, and theologies. You're in a crowd where each person has a different view/take on life, and you're in the middle with a megaphone...angering the masses. :bad:

One of my biggest issues with the LDS church is the member's lack of acceptance.

Now, with that said, let me just toss in my little belief. The bible is a record. Agreed? Throughout time, wars happen, and whoever wins a war gets a chance to re-write the record. So it is very hard for be to believe in a record that has been re-written so many times, and could have been misinterpreted each time. My school had an experiment one time that has something to do with this. You line about 20 or so students up in a line. The first student whispers a short sentence to the person next to him, and so on...by the end of the line, the sentence is nowhere near what the original sentence was. :bad:

If two guy's or two chicks want to hook up and have a legal document saying that they are legally married and qualify for all the benefits that come with marriage...then why should a inconsistent, inaccurate record of stories that are easily blown waaaaay out of proportion state that people who love each other, regardless of sex, not be able to get legally married? :hmm:

But that's just me. :rolling:

Gnarf, it's perfectly fine to doubt your beliefs. I doubt my beliefs quite regularly, and I allow them to change with new evidence that arises. Stagnant beliefs lead to a stagnant mind.I spent several years doubting my beliefs. All I have to show for it is regret over the wasted years and a firm conviction that they were right all along. I wouldn't be able to afford the booze and dope if I went back to that at your request...

lack of acceptance.Membership has it's responsibilities. For those that believe, there are privelidges too...

Back on page one, it was stated that the views of religion regarding Homosexuality. For the last 13 pages, every attempt made to do so has met with mockery as opposed to serious discussion. About the only thing that has changed is my opinion of some of you here. Like many of the changes you want me to make, that's not a good thing...

Booze = evil...'dope' = gift of God that shouldn't be abused. It is for personal insight into the reality of consciousness and the non-duality of the body and mind, and also of the non-duality of the mind and God.

It's also a handy catalyst for such mental disorders as depression and schizophrenia. But that's a different story.

Back on page one, it was stated that the views of religion regarding Homosexuality. For the last 13 pages, every attempt made to do so has met with mockery as opposed to serious discussion. About the only thing that has changed is my opinion of some of you here. Like many of the changes you want me to make, that's not a good thing... Mockery? No. You're just so deep in denial that any questioning of your beliefs is twisted into you being "mocked". All that's been happening for the last 13 pages is people pointing out that your precious holy book isn't as infallible as you'd hoped it'd be.

Off topic, I know, but pot helped my depression...it's only when it's abused and not used correctly that it leads to problems...

On topic...Gnarf, really we haven't been mocking you, we have been trying to tell you and NOG that there is more to the equation than you're willing to admit. That is all.

Ok, to start this off:
Let's ban Christians from getting married and disallow them from raising children. Obviously they aren't suited to the task, they believe in this great big invisible man, they're deluded and a delusional person is a danger to their children and their spouse. I think this was meant sarcastically, so drop it, please.

Christians being mentally ill... in some regards, yes. They actually think there's this great big invisible man who is watching your every move and you must do as he says because if you don't you will go to hell and burn and suffer and be tortured for all eternity!... but he loves you. And the only proof of this is some 2000 year old book written by men. For something to be considered a mental disorder it must have a significantly negative impact on your life. All evidence (which isn't much) points to Christianity usually having a positive impact on your life. So no mental disorder here.

That in itself is interesting considering recorded human history goes back at least 10, 000 years...nevermind unrecorded human history which goes back more than 100, 000 years. Recorded history doesn't go back 10,000 years. You're stretching it to say it goes back 5,000 years. On the other hand, the anatomically modern human form (Homo Sapien Sapien) has been around somewhere between 100K and 200K years. There's no evidence for any kind of civilization for most of this, though. Intellectually modern humans (as much something taught as born to) seem to have developed somewhere between 6K and 10K years ago, though it is VERY unclear where in that range it actually started to happen.

babylons, egypts, chinese people, just to name some, have recorded history way before the bible timeframe.
These cultures have texts which can be dated older than the oldest surviving copy of the Torah (I keep thinking I'm misspelling that), but not older than the Torah claims humanity to be. The first hints of civilization (permanent settlements and farming) don't occur until around 5K-6K years ago.

The city of Jericho was founded at least 10, 000 years ago and has been settled ever since, with each new city building its foundations on the previous city and so on. WTH? Could you cite a source, please?

So it is very hard for be to believe in a record that has been re-written so many times, and could have been misinterpreted each time. My school had an experiment one time that has something to do with this. You line about 20 or so students up in a line. The first student whispers a short sentence to the person next to him, and so on...by the end of the line, the sentence is nowhere near what the original sentence was. Except the older copies have shown the Bible to be remacably resistant to this effect. Regardless of what normally happens, the Bible HASN'T been re-written since the oldest surviving copy of it (several hundred BC). On top of that, archeology has yet to prove anything in the Bible false, which is quite possible with histories falsified by the winner, but has rather shown much of it to be true.

Booze = evil...'dope' = gift of God that shouldn't be abused. It is for personal insight into the reality of consciousness and the non-duality of the body and mind, and also of the non-duality of the mind and God. ??? Where's this from?

Mockery? No. You're just so deep in denial that any questioning of your beliefs is twisted into you being "mocked". All that's been happening for the last 13 pages is people pointing out that your precious holy book isn't as infallible as you'd hoped it'd be. On topic...Gnarf, really we haven't been mocking you, we have been trying to tell you and NOG that there is more to the equation than you're willing to admit. That is all. I'm not sure I'd call it mockery, but it hasn't been the passive attempt to enlighten us you claim it to be. You have attacked our beliefs and tried to prove the Bible false. We have countered those attempts. You seem to refuse to accept our counters for various reasons, lets not get into the legitimacy of them, but haven't countered our counters.

Additionally, I haven't seen much of anything that is actually 'adding to the equation'. Most all of it seems to be trying to take the Bible out, but I haven't seen anything that tries to add more info in. That's what I'd like to hear. No more 'this is why the Bible is wrong/irrelevant', but rather 'this is why I believe homosexuality should be legal'. And lets get into some real governmental mechanics here, like does the government have the right to legislate marriage (or similar relationships).

First things first: You're the one who made the argument go down this path by using the Bible as justification for refusing homosexuals rights that are available to heterosexuals. we were merely pointing out the inadaquacy of the source. And you haven't provided an adaquate counter-argument, hence why this argument has drawn on for so long. Here's a hint: you can't prove the legitimacy of a source using the source itself.

No more 'this is why the Bible is wrong/irrelevant', but rather 'this is why I believe homosexuality should be legal'. And lets get into some real governmental mechanics here, like does the government have the right to legislate marriage (or similar relationships).
Yes, it does. It has the right to legislate a governmental function which allows homosexuals the same rights as a married heterosexal couple. I see no reason for homosexuals to have their rights restricted by religion within a secular society.

:yot:

On top of that, archeology has yet to prove anything in the Bible false, which is quite possible with histories falsified by the winner, but has rather shown much of it to be true.Archeology has already falsified biblical claims: Jericho for example. Nataraja mentioned it. Destroyed not by Israelis but by earthquakes that devastated the entire region. This Josua/Joshua "conquered" a destroyed and mostly abandonded city. Never mind that Palestine and Syria were part of Egypt's territory. Egypt, the regional hegemon of the time. Unlikely they would fiddle around with their sistrums while marauders attempt to burn down their holdings. ;)

The first hints of civilization (permanent settlements and farming) don't occur until around 5K-6K years ago.Take a look here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe). There are many such cultures appearing before 4000 BC. This one in particular seems to have been around 11000 years ago. If you take a look here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/489449.stm), the first known farmers were around roughly 13,000 years ago. Or if you look up the Natufian culture, you'll see that there were settlements around the Mediterranean region around 14,000 years ago. They weren't a farming culture, but did have permanent settlements, with up to about 1000 houses in them, which IMO is certainly signs of civilization.

Go back even further than that and you find that the first art appeared in Europe around 37,000 years ago, during the Paleolic period. Or just back even further and you find that the Cro-Magnons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro-Magnon), when they moved into Europe around 42,000 years ago "they brought with them sculpture, engraving, painting, body ornamentation, music and the painstaking decoration of utilitarian objects."

So, to quote you, NOG:
WTH? Could you cite a source, please?

While this is somewhat relevant to the topic at hand, I don't want it to take over completely either.

Therefore, here's a thread for discussing religious text and authenticity:

http://www.sorcerers.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?/topic/20/1647.html

'dope' = gift of God that shouldn't be abused. It is for personal insight into the reality of consciousness and the non-duality of the body and mind, and also of the non-duality of the mind and God.I used to think that pot helped me make sense of the world too. It didn't work. Once you start, it's like Pringles--once you pop, you just can't stop. (until you pass out or get sick...)

It's also a handy catalyst for such mental disorders as depression and schizophrenia. But that's a different story.Why do you think I'm glad I quit?

Off topic, I know, but pot helped my depression...it's only when it's abused and not used correctly that it leads to problems...People who saw me when I was toking regularly, they said that my Tourette Syndrome was not as severe. But Like I said before, I didn't use it in moderation, so I really don't want to go through that again.

Back to topic:

we have been trying to tell you and NOG that there is more to the equation than you're willing to admit.Again, it comes down to beliefs. We are defending our beliefs. From our beliefs, it's a simple case of homosexuality is wrong, just like adultery and fornication, no better, no worse. The only difference is that this transgression is championed by a group that identifies themselves by their preference of this sin. The presense of such a group does not change that point of doctrine.

For something to be considered a mental disorder it must have a significantly negative impact on your life.That is why Homosexuality was no longer classified as a mental illness according to the American Psychiatric Association after 1973.

You're the one who made the argument go down this path by using the Bible as justification for refusing homosexuals rights that are available to heterosexuals.The Bible is our source of our beliefs. Attack the Bible and it's validity, you seek to remove the validity of our beliefs.

Yes, it does. It has the right to legislate a governmental function which allows homosexuals the same rights as a married heterosexal couple. I see no reason for homosexuals to have their rights restricted by religion within a secular society.Actually, I challenged that too. All marriage derives from some religious background, and thus the State cannot trump it. The State merely builds a framework around it to accommodate it. That framework can adapt, but the core of Marriage should be beyond government tinkering.

I think that this must be the most repetitive thread I've seen.

First off I'll give a short message Gnarf...

I share membership of the same church as you, but I can see we have major differences. First off I believe that you inform people of you beliefs and guage their reaction. If they don't want to hear it (as is the case here) it truly does no good to try to force it down their throats. It makes a hypocrite out of you in relation to your statements regarding homosexuals trying to force their beliefs. Consequently this makes people care even less for your beliefs. You've made your possition clear now aim at supporting it rather than tearing the other side down.

For those non-religious backers...

I know this is the Alley, but ripping apart people for their religious beliefs isn't the way to go about making your point. Unless you are delibrately trying to provoke Gnarf and NOG, as it seems to be here, in which case it doesn't even belong in the Alley and reflects negatively on you and causes the chasm between the two sides to grow even more, bringing out more immature behavior on both sides.

I'm not trying to force you guys to not state your beliefs, but it is getting kind of ugly on BOTH sides as Beren pointed out a few days ago (and possibly more recently). Keep on with the postings (as it is a good topic), but keep it civil please.

Feel free to be :mad: with me ;)

Actually, I challenged that too. All marriage derives from some religious background, and thus the State cannot trump it. The State merely builds a framework around it to accommodate it. That framework can adapt, but the core of Marriage should be beyond government tinkering.So could I form a new religion where homosexual marriages are allowed and then the state should build a framework around to accommodate it?

But no, in general I fully respect that belief. The only thing I would add though, if marriage is a religous thing, which the state has no right to tamper with, it should have no legal baring at all.

This is where the seperation of chuch and state comes in. Either marriage is a purely religous thing, in which case the government has no right to alter it; but as a result, there is no offical status for it. Or marriage is a legal thing, in which case the state has every right in the world to change it. After all, that is what the government is there for - to keep our laws up to date and relevant.

@Clixby:
First things first: You're the one who made the argument go down this path by using the Bible as justification for refusing homosexuals rights that are available to heterosexuals.
Actually, no. This started when Rotku innocently asked where the Bible condemned homosexuality. We answered with quotes and several of you then attacked the Bible, claiming those passages were unclear, that it could have been added later, or that the Bible as a whole is irrelevant. On top of that, I haven't claimed homosexuals shouldn't get rights.

we were merely pointing out the inadaquacy of the source. And you haven't provided an adaquate counter-argument, hence why this argument has drawn on for so long. How have my counters not been adequate? I've explained why you are wrong, in several different terms, and even given sources when asked.

Here's a hint: you can't prove the legitimacy of a source using the source itself. Who's trying to? I'm using Roman records, historical documents, and archeological evidence.

@Rotku:
Interesting, and certainly news to me. I find it interesting, however, that some of the archeologists on the dig associate the artwork on the temple with the story of Eden. Far from breaking the Biblical story, this seems to provide a realistic possibility to explain it. Again, nothing absolute either way.

Thanks for the links.

@State and marriage:
The term marriage originally refered to religious cerimonies binding two individuals (sometimes more). These bindings became legal as they addressed things like sharing of property, inheritence, etc., but these things were likely established in a basic sense before much in the way of organized government existed. When organized government was formed, it incorporated these long-cherished cerimonies into the government, much like early governments did with religion and the like. Now we have gotten religion and government mostly seperate, but marriage is still a solid part of governmental institution. This then raises questions of its own. Should we seperate religious marriage and governmental union? Should the government have the right to re-define marriage as it sees fit? Remember that your answers to these can swing both ways. If government has the right to re-define marriage as it sees fit, then a democracy or democratic republic has the right to re-define marriage as the majority of the people under that government see fit, which may well be against homosexuality.

If government has the right to re-define marriage as it sees fit, then a democracy or democratic republic has the right to re-define marriage as the majority of the people under that government see fit, which may well be against homosexuality.Which is where you come across JS Mill's Tyrrany of the Majority. The government also has the right to remove the vote from minority races, religons or what ever. This doesn't mean it's right. But nor does it mean we should give the church the power to decide who votes or not.

As long as Mariagge is seen as an official status giving certain advantages in society it should be availeble to all.
Secondly and this is the importent part, while mariagge may come from religion, it dosn't particulary comes from christianity.
but that is completely off topic.

Now regarding religeus texts, while i dont believe in any god/goddess.
I do see that most religions have some good messages. Most religions teaches kindness and goodness, Sadly the three major religions (jewidism, islam, christianity) also justifies or at least can be used to justify intolorence, which history have shown us.
So generaly I feel religion is outdated, and while it might have a place in private homes, it should have no influence on society.

@Equester:
Just about anything can be used to 'justify' intollerance. Science has been the tool more than once, Hinduism has been there at least once, Buddhism several times throughout the history of Japan. Anything that even suggests any kind of difference between people can be used to 'justify' intollerance.

Just about anything can be used to 'justify' intollerance. Science has been the tool more than once, Hinduism has been there at least once, Buddhism several times throughout the history of Japan. Anything that even suggests any kind of difference between people can be used to 'justify' intollerance. Indeed, it was not my intention, to only blame does 3. religions or not take in science, since the Nazies for eksample twisted science to say the jews was an inferior race (which is wierd since jewidism isn't even a race, its a believe).
But if you look through out history in almost any case it has boiled down to religion, even in modern days. secondly i used jewidism, christianity and islam as examples, since that are does which have affected us in the west most.

And in my opinion, a lot of this could be avoided if religions didn't tend to claim that they are the only right believe, that thier believers are superior and by not condeming certain people.

Which is where you come across JS Mill's Tyrrany of the Majority. You can't have a democracy without it, so you take it or leave it... And it sure beats tyranny of the minority ;)

Religious intolerance is born of ignorance. Humanities lack of foresite and its forgetfulness of the past leads to bad decision making on a second by second, minute by minute, hour by hour, day by day basis. We cannot foresee the consequences of our actions, and we all to easily forget the consequences of our past choices as we are often still in the process of living through the consequences of our choices, for good or bad. People forget that we are all the same inside, where it matters most, and too often people get caught up in external differences. Yes, look at the differences, but don't lose track of the commonalities. Just as day cannot exist without night, and night cannot exist without day, so too does goodness fail to exist without evilness. Although, it's not really 'goodness' or 'evilness', but rather positive and negative. Not all negatives are 'bad', and not all positives are 'good'. You cannot have one or the other, you can only have both, at the same time, there is no duality.

And since homosexuality is considered an 'evil', then you must understand that it's not...it's simply another alternative to the great tapestry that is conscious life...life that is shared by everything from complex organisms to simple cell organisms.

If God created people, then he created homosexuals, trans-genders and a multitude of other types of people, and if he didn't create homosexuals then evolution did. I believe both...God and evolution, religion and science...they cannot exist without the other if they want to exist without being lopsided.

Interersting view that you have their Nataraja; I almost am disappointed that I disagree with some parts.

I agree that without possitive there can't be a negative. Without sorrow there cannot be happiness, and vice versa. I can state with full conviction that the evils in the world are only possible because God has allowed them, so that we may enjoy the concept of happiness. No matter the depths that we go into there is always an upside, a better turn coming and I live by that.

The difference in opinion between us stems from what we consider positives and negatives. I consider homosexuality to be immoral due to my religious background, and I'm not one to forsake my teachings unless I find a major reason for it. Your possitive/negative theory for it not being wrong (or evil as you put it) can be slightly altered explain my belief of it being wrong. There are evils that exist so that once we get pass them or overcome them we can have happiness. I believe that if a person overcomes homosexuality they can truly be happier than if they don't and live what I believe to be a life of sin. I don't know how to overcome it as I lack any personal experience, but I think if put your religious faith to task it will pay dividends for your future hapiness even if it doesn't seem so now.

I'm really hoping that wasn't too preachy or intolerable...

Don't worry, I'm pretty open minded and tolerant.

I guess part of my view is due to that I live in a constant 'now' moment of time. Every 'now' moment is eternally 'now'. The past is just 'now that has been' and the future is 'now waiting to happen', but since the future is always going to be 'now' at some point, time is always 'now' for me, and I live in an eternal 'now-ness'.

And I guess another part of it is due to the way I perceive the nature of God. To me, and to all Shaivites - especially those of the Advaita Vedanta school - God is the force that literally holds the atoms together, the force that is literally keeping everything from flying apart and causing the ceasation of all things. God is the energy that binds everything together, he is the neutral energy in the atom that holds the positive and negative charges together. God is also consciousness, and everything that has consciousness is part of God, and matter is consciousness condensed, and space is consciousness uncondensed. But this isn't the right place to be posting all this...

You can't have a democracy without it, so you take it or leave it... And it sure beats tyranny of the minorityYou can certainly have democracy without it. If you educate people, allow complete freedom of information and have a more proportionate voting system you greatly lessen the chances. But it can be argued that a tyranny of the minority should be feared less than one of the majority - simply because it is more easy to control the former than the latter.

The US version of democracy is totalitarian dictatorship anyway...

If they don't want to hear it (as is the case here) it truly does no good to try to force it down their throats.That's not my intent, but that's how it comes across. I've stated numerous times that I suck at this, but I still try...

So could I form a new religion where homosexual marriages are allowed and then the state should build a framework around to accommodate it?Under the Constitution, yes, but expect a huge backlash.

The only thing I would add though, if marriage is a religous thing, which the state has no right to tamper with, it should have no legal baring at all.Those that enter into it without a full appreciation of the responsibilities can abuse it. A framework that accommodates marriage also protects those entering into it from being defrauded or abused. The same sacrifices and teamwork exists whether it is a traditional, religious marriage, a civil formalization, a common law relationship, even a same sex relationship. The same fraud and abuse exists in all four cases, requiring that framework to extend to same sex unions, but that is a state matter. The State has to deal with that framework.

Let them deal with the framework, but leave the ordinance itself alone. Failure to do this will lead to a war. People will come to the forefront that are worse than you think I am--deliberately forcing their opinions on you (as opposed to my inadvertant offence), and much more skilled at this than I am.

Which is where you come across JS Mill's Tyrrany of the Majority. The government also has the right to remove the vote from minority races, religons or what ever. This doesn't mean it's right. But nor does it mean we should give the church the power to decide who votes or not.Winston Churchill once said that Democracy is the worst form of government--except for all the other forms that have been tried. No matter what form of government is attempted, everyone will find something to ***** about...

As long as Mariagge is seen as an official status giving certain advantages in society it should be availeble to all.With such status copmes added responsibility. If this status is granted by a religious authority, then they have the obligation to see that those who seek this status abide these responsibilities. If the Religion forbids homosexuality, then they should NOT perform the ordinance.

Secondly and this is the importent part, while mariagge may come from religion, it dosn't particulary comes from christianity.Christianity is not the only religion that condemns homosexuality. Christianity is the most common religion in the western world however, and the only one I feel qualified to comment on.

So generaly I feel religion is outdated, and while it might have a place in private homes, it should have no influence on society.What happens on the micro level influences the macro level somehow...

Religious intolerance is born of ignorance.Not necessarily. There are those that have experience with that which they don't wish to tolerate, and know all too well why it's not tolerated.

Just as day cannot exist without night, and night cannot exist without day, so too does goodness fail to exist without evilness.That's actually in the Book of Mormon. But the existance of Evil does not require us to partake. It instead requires us recognize and abstain from these evils.

And since homosexuality is considered an 'evil', then you must understand that it's not...it's simply another alternative to the great tapestry that is conscious life...life that is shared by everything from complex organisms to simple cell organisms.This is where we differ. By placing God at the head of the Universe, and assuming that he has given us laws for our own good, we acknowledge that we ought obey thes laws. Evil is a term applied to those things not pleasing to God that we are sometimes tempted to do.

If God created people, then he created homosexuals, trans-genders and a multitude of other types of people, and if he didn't create homosexuals then evolution did.Your beliefs do not include a "devil" or opposition. Mine do. Satan desires that we do not return to God, and tempts us to do things that are wrong and seeks to convince us that we are weak and that we have no choice but to do things that God has forbidden. The temptation for homosexual relations can seem overwhelming to a great many. It doesn't make it all right.

God is the force that literally holds the atoms together, the force that is literally keeping everything from flying apart and causing the ceasation of all things. God is the energy that binds everything together, he is the neutral energy in the atom that holds the positive and negative charges togetherI was taught that this was simply God's Power. Those of extreme faith and extremely blessed by God have some ability to manipulate this energy, like Moses parting the Red Sea, or Jesus Christ healing the Sick. This is God sharing his power with them. It is to be used to further God's will.

If you educate people, allow complete freedom of information and have a more proportionate voting system you greatly lessen the chances.But does that not attempt to skew the power in favour of the ones charged with the education of the masses?

With such status copmes added responsibility. If this status is granted by a religious authority, then they have the obligation to see that those who seek this status abide these responsibilities. If the Religion forbids homosexuality, then they should NOT perform the ordinance. yup religions that forbid homosexuality shouldn't be forced to marry them. but since the state performs marriages, dosn't forbid homosexuality, it clear should be allowed to marry them. which has been my point all the time.
and since marriages status as something special in the eyes of the law, ultimately is granted by the state, all should be allowed to marry.

In Denmark gay people of cause arent married by christain priests or imams or any religion that forbids them, they are married by the Mayor in the townhall, just like atheist or other people that simply wont have a church marriages. its equal in the eyes of the law and should offend no religion.
I meen if your offended by homosexuals being allowed to marry, you might as well say that all non-christians shouldn't be allowed to marry.

Christianity is not the only religion that condemns homosexuality.Just out of curiosity, which religions forbid homosexuality? I know that Christianity and Islam do, and Judaism probably does, since those three are cut form the same cloth, but are there any others?

Not really, no...

Keep religion out of the government and the government out of the bedroom :borg:

Winston Churchill once said that Democracy is the worst form of government--except for all the other forms that have been tried. No matter what form of government is attempted, everyone will find something to ***** about...
Don't quite see your point here mate. Are you saying that because it isn't perfect we can use that as an excuse to put down the minority? You could use this to justify anything. Whether it be not allowing homosexuals the right of marriage; not allowing non-whites the vote; forcing everyone to have a certain religion. A very very poor excuse.

To quote Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker, "Majoritarian democracy by itself is not freedom but the rule by a larger group. … Under a victorious democracy the most important task for liberal principles is thus the protection of minorities, especially of those which do not have a chance to gain the majority for themselves."

If you look at the original draft of the Declaration of Indepedence, Jefferson writes "We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable; that all men are created equal and independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." (June 1776) Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is one of the founding documents of the USA, and it clearly states, not only that all men are craeted equal, but it is their inalienable right to pursue happiness. IMO, to be legally recongised as a couple fits very neatly into that catagory.

Then from the same quote, we could look at the inalienable right of liberty. Now liberty, unlike many Americans have tended to describe it (still don't under stand how liberal can be used as an insult...), is not a bad thing. It is the ability to do what one wishes, so long as it does not harm anyone else. As soon as you restrict marriages (or the vote, the right to sit in certain seats in public transport due to race, etc) from certain people, you are removing this pillar that your country was founded upon - the flag that you tend to wave. Without liberty, there is no freedom. Without freedom, democracy doesn't function. Without democracy... well, I point you to Churchill's quote, which, by the way, is "Democracy is the worst form of government except from all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

With such status copmes added responsibility. If this status is granted by a religious authority, then they have the obligation to see that those who seek this status abide these responsibilities. If the Religion forbids homosexuality, then they should NOT perform the ordinance.That's exactly the point. Due to seperation of state and religion, if homosexuals are not allowed to be married due to religous reasons, it clearly shows that marriage is a religous ceremony and therefore should have no legal rights.

If it does have legal rights associated with it, then the status is not granted by a religous authority, but by the state. In which case, to prohibit one group from marriages due to a religous belief is not right, espcially in the US, where the First Admendment prohibits the Congressional establishment of religion.

[ October 27, 2006, 22:20: Message edited by: Rotku ]

You can't have a democracy without it, so you take it or leave it... And it sure beats tyranny of the minority

--------------------------------------------------

You can certainly have democracy without it. If you educate people, allow complete freedom of information and have a more proportionate voting system you greatly lessen the chances. But it can be argued that a tyranny of the minority should be feared less than one of the majority - simply because it is more easy to control the former than the latter.You can't have democracy without something that someone will call tyranny, that's how it works out. The losing side will always have people that consider the majority to be opressing them even if they aren't, so it would be considered tyranny (by some).

If you look at the original draft of the Declaration of Indepedence, Jefferson writes "We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable; that all men are created equal and independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." (June 1776) Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is one of the founding documents of the USA, and it clearly states, not only that all men are craeted equal, but it is their inalienable right to pursue happiness. IMO, to be legally recongised as a couple fits very neatly into that catagory No the original draft is not one of America's founding documents. However, you could've attempted to justify your point with the final one just as well...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Yeah, the final draft works as well. I just prefered the original line ;)

But even if someone will always call it a tyranny, are you saying that this is an excuse to let it become one? Would it not be more appropriate to try and sway as far away from this as possible? There will always be poverty and wars, but this doesn't mean we should just accept it and let them happen.

but since the state performs marriages, dosn't forbid homosexuality, it clear should be allowed to marry them.But Marriage laws are merely a framework to protect those that enter into such covenents, not a secular replacement. The framework allows for similar arrangements for aethiests and those that simply choose not to formalize the union, but that framework is what will ultimately accommodate homosexuals. Basically, the objection is that the state should be accommodating them without cheapening the religious ordinance. Civil Unions as opposed to marriage would reflect the secular framework...

Keep religion out of the government and the government out of the bedroomThe Government should not ignore religion altogether though. In a democracy, religious thought can and does influence the vote.

Are you saying that because it isn't perfect we can use that as an excuse to put down the minority?I'm saying that if you insist on railing on democracy, try something else. It won't be any better...

Majoritarian democracy by itself is not freedom but the rule by a larger group. … Under a victorious democracy the most important task for liberal principles is thus the protection of minorities, especially of those which do not have a chance to gain the majority for themselves.But in this case, that minority is a direct offence to the beliefs of the majority. While we don't want to prosecute them, we don't want the state, who takes it upon themselves to wade into the morality debate, to tell them it's just as valid as legal marriage. The majority are or claim to be members of religions that frown on homosexuality. As long as homosexuality is equivalent to fornication or adultery, then there is no problem...

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is one of the founding documents of the USA, and it clearly states, not only that all men are craeted equal, but it is their inalienable right to pursue happiness.But remember this as well...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."Correct me if I'm wrong, but that implies that said creator is the very God that Christians worship. This implies not a seperation, but an interdependence between Church and State. Basically, Though religion does not directly dictate the law, it ought not be ignored either. The more the law seeks to ignore the people, the less the politicians get the support of the religious community. The elections are won by those that do get some of that support. That's why George W got back in despite all the negative stuff I read about him here...

But Marriage laws are merely a framework to protect those that enter into such covenents, not a secular replacement. The framework allows for similar arrangements for aethiests and those that simply choose not to formalize the union, but that framework is what will ultimately accommodate homosexuals. Basically, the objection is that the state should be accommodating them without cheapening the religious ordinance. Civil Unions as opposed to marriage would reflect the secular framework...Civil unions are fine.....as long as no one gets a "marriage" from the government. Heterosexuals getting "marriage" and homosexuals getting "civil unions" is a textbook example of the government establishing or endorsing a specific religion. Ironically, such a double standard also constitutes religious discrimination, since Presbetyrians and a few other christian denominations have actually performed gay marriages (in the religious sense.....not in the legal sense, for obvious reasons). When the government refuses to recognize such a union, it is a textbook case of impeding an individual's right to practice his faith. I have no issues with the "civil union" concept.....as long as it applies to all marriages granted by the government. "Marriage" should be performed by the church, if it's so damn sacred. The government needn't have a hand in it.

But in this case, that minority is a direct offence to the beliefs of the majority.Once again, let's take the race example. Let's say, for argument sakes that in this country 51% of the people are White. It offends them deeply seeing any other of the 49% of the population voting, sitting on the same train carriages as them or using the same toliets as them. Does this mean it is right, or good, that they prohibit the minority group from doing this?

The Government should not ignore religion altogether though. In a democracy, religious thought can and does influence the vote.I agree completely here. Religon has every right to influence votes as any other form of belief or opinion. But it should not be used as a reason to negatively descriminate against a proportion of the population. This is not the reason behind religons - it's the ugly side of them, which does more harm than good.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that implies that said creator is the very God that Christians worship. This implies not a seperation, but an interdependence between Church and State.Yet the same people who wrote that, a few years after put forth the Bill of Rights, which, from my understanding, clearly state that there should be no ties between state and church. Also note the word 'their' Creator, not 'the' Creator. To me this implies that it is a personal thing, and not one universal creator behind the staring wheel.

The more the law seeks to ignore the people, the less the politicians get the support of the religious community.The more religion tries to enforce their views upon others, and insist that their morals are the right ones, the less support they will (and should) get from everyone - including the state.

The elections are won by those that do get some of that support. That's why George W got back in despite all the negative stuff I read about him here...I hear they can teach chimpanzees to paint as well.

I don't think the goverment should interfere with personal life of citizens...But i can understand why they condemn homosexual marriages...

"Marriage" should be performed by the church, if it's so damn sacred. The government needn't have a hand in it.Havig civil authorities perform heterosexual marriages was seen as the lesser evil, as the people were still marrying, and thus not committing sexual sin. This was not a problem until people of the same Gender wanted to marry.

Let's say, for argument sakes that in this country 51% of the people are White. It offends them deeply seeing any other of the 49% of the population voting, sitting on the same train carriages as them or using the same toliets as them. Does this mean it is right, or good, that they prohibit the minority group from doing this?No, but the law will not change until enough of the 51% change their minds or the 49% rises up and overthrows the 51%, changing the mix (and the power) in the process. The difference is that I don't see any good reason for segregation when there is no epidemic of racial violence. It's not like the core religious text of the majority stated that it is a greivous offence to God for blacks to sit at the front of the bus or use the same toilets as a white. You want to compare discrimination based on skin colour to discrimination based on what they do.

But it should not be used as a reason to negatively descriminate against a proportion of the population.It tells us what things are sins. All of us sin at some point in our life. None of these things are "okay" by the bible. The difference is that you have a group of the people that say something is okay when the bible says it isn't. Even the State has to draw the line somewhere. I would imagine that your arguements against pedophilia would sound like my arguements against homosexuality. There are lobby groups of pedophiles that would accuse you of taking the same stance as you claim I take.

This is not the reason behind religons - it's the ugly side of them, which does more harm than good.I doubt that the prison system is a pretty sight either. It's not the point of the law, but it is a part of it that cannot be seperated from it. Just as incarceration and non-acceptance are the consequences of crime, such non-acceptance is the result of sin. Niether case is this personal, but the state/church has obligations to the person, but cannot accept their crime/sin.

Yet the same people who wrote that, a few years after put forth the Bill of Rights, which, from my understanding, clearly state that there should be no ties between state and church.The way I understand it, it basically states that no church shall dominate the Government. I return to the word interdependence however because religion shapes the will of the people. You lose the support of the religious groups, you ultimately lose the support of the people. What I notice in both US and Canadian politics is parties that get some of it right, but screw up on other points (in the abscence of clear, divisive issues, this splits the religious vote).

The more religion tries to enforce their views upon others, and insist that their morals are the right ones, the less support they will (and should) get from everyone - including the state.I'm not so sure of that. Insistance only comes to the fore front on highly divisive issues. In such cases, it does not drive away the faithful, only those that oppose the doctrine on these issues. The State has the unenviable position of being forces to cater to both...

quote:The elections are won by those that do get some of that support. That's why George W got back in despite all the negative stuff I read about him here...

I hear they can teach chimpanzees to paint as well.From the comments about his ability to govern, They're capable of being elected president too. Either that or I should expect PETA to harrass me for insulting chimps...

Havig civil authorities perform heterosexual marriages was seen as the lesser evil, as the people were still marrying, and thus not committing sexual sin. This was not a problem until people of the same Gender wanted to marry. No, at least not in denmark, where the majority are atheists. Non-religius marriages was made to give the non-religius people an equal institution in thier relationship and to ensure them certain legal rights. Married people get some different legal rights regarding insurence and other stuff.

Now we rather quickly came to the conclusion that keeping such rights from people, do to thier sexual preference was against the law, so homosexuals was allowed to be married by the state.

Havig civil authorities perform heterosexual marriages was seen as the lesser evil, as the people were still marrying, and thus not committing sexual sin. This was not a problem until people of the same Gender wanted to marry.Hmm......the real reason that the government oversees marriage is to prevent sexual sin? I didn't know that. Apparrently, I never got that memo. If, however, that actually were the intent of our marriage laws, wouldn't that just be another reason to change them? I seem to remember the bill of rights saying something like this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.......

No, at least not in denmark, where the majority are atheists. While you might live there I have very difficult time believing in this. According to Wikipedia more than 80% of Danish population are members of the Lutheran Church and while I'm sure that most of these are inactive in their Church I do think that it's is very much exaggerated to call most of the Danish people atheists.

To me this phenomenon in the Lutheran church where people actually going to church every sundays etc. is just to show that religion is not in such a central role in people's lives. While they might hold the Christian beliefs they just won't bother to go to church and they don't feel the need to do so. Most people still have christian marriages, christian funerals, christian confirmation and christian baptism. Which would indicate that they still hold on to the core Christian beliefs.

what you most undestand morgoth is that some 25-30 years ago you where, when born pr automatic member of the danish lutheran church and when adult pays and extremely small tax to keep a state-payed christian church going, this has and still leads to a lot of debate, since we claim we have a separation between state and church, then way do one church recieve money through taxes. the automatic church taxes is now gone, so now instead of choosing not to pay it, you have to choose to pay it.
Regarding people having church weddings, funerals, baptism and confermation, has more to do with tradition then believe. just like christmass.

Oh believe you me I know since I live in a country with exactly the same system. And while I would agree that most people tend to be indifferent towards church and not be that spiritual anymore these days. However I would bet that if you polled Denmark and ask if they think that they are A) Christian B) Atheists C) Other, the Christian part would still win by a very dominant margin. This is naturally widely based on how I see religion in Finland but considering that our countries are in many ways very similar I would be suprised if things were so different there.

yes i belive that too, but if you asked them if they prey, go to church or actually have read the bible or follow it, the answer would be no in the large majority to all 4. so in practise they would be atheist. so its just a mather of definition.

Hmm......the real reason that the government oversees marriage is to prevent sexual sin?That would have been a long time ago, when priests had to travel long distances to some areas that didn't have their own holy men. The Church would likely have recognized this to avoid trouble rather than fighting the battle of Church and State. Now that the mandate of the State differs in a more drastic manner, that battle is brewing...

@Equester:
But if you look through out history in almost any case it has boiled down to religion, even in modern days. secondly i used jewidism, christianity and islam as examples, since that are does which have affected us in the west most. Not so much. Intolerance is supported by whatever is popular and credible at the time. In WWII, the Nazis demonized the Jews (the herritage, not the religion I believe) with science, but they weren't the only ones doing this. Many American scientists were eager to show 'scientific' evidence that blacks were inferior, frequently using the same kind of arguements as the Nazis did. Since then, science has been used as much as religion. In the middle ages, science isn't used because science isn't considered credible. Religion is used to persecute the Jews, gypsies, and Arabs because it is still the main power in the world. Had science progressed to the WWII stage by then, it could just as easily been science that was used.

@Nataraja:
Religious intolerance is born of ignorance. All irrational intolerance is so born, not just religious.

Just as day cannot exist without night, and night cannot exist without day, so too does goodness fail to exist without evilness. Although, it's not really 'goodness' or 'evilness', but rather positive and negative. Not all negatives are 'bad', and not all positives are 'good'. You cannot have one or the other, you can only have both, at the same time, there is no duality. This makes no sense whatsoever. First off, of course day can exist without night (in a binary star system), and you can't prove by any means that good can't exist without evil. Second of all, you then replace 'good' and 'evil' with 'positive' and 'negative' which I assume refers to the similarities and differences between people. While 'good' and 'evil' may not equate to 'positive' and 'negative', 'good' and 'bad' certainly do, though I think you would have a hard time classifying most of our differences in either. And at the end, you contradict yourself. You say you can only have both at the same time, but there is no duality. Duality is having both at the same time. Duality is something (a person) having dual and opposed nature (good and bad characteristics).

And since homosexuality is considered an 'evil', then you must understand that it's not...it's simply another alternative to the great tapestry that is conscious life...life that is shared by everything from complex organisms to simple cell organisms.
And here you begin to equate 'good' and 'evil with 'positive' and 'negative', though I'm not sure which you consider homosexuality to be. This is obviously a mistake, since you already said you weren't talking about 'good' and 'evil'.

If God created people, then he created homosexuals, trans-genders and a multitude of other types of people, and if he didn't create homosexuals then evolution did. I believe both...God and evolution, religion and science...they cannot exist without the other if they want to exist without being lopsided. I think this is the most confused of all. Yes, if God created everything, then God created people who would be homosexuals, though it does not follow that God created them to be homosexuals. There could have been other influences after creation. God may have created everything, but there are plenty of things that can change things. Finally, religion and science can exist without each other, they are seperable disciplines. Religion has existed without science for thousands of years, and many scientists exist without religion. Science answers 'How' while religion answers 'Why'. While the two can certianly influence each other, they can also exist in a vacuum.

In the end, I feel like this post was a buch of double-talk fit for a politician. I'm sorry if that offends anyone, and I don't mean to attack you Nataraja, but I hope your posts return to the logical caliber they once held.

@Rotku:
You can certainly have democracy without it. If you educate people, allow complete freedom of information and have a more proportionate voting system you greatly lessen the chances. But it can be argued that a tyranny of the minority should be feared less than one of the majority - simply because it is more easy to control the former than the latter. If 'tyrrany of the majority' is the majority forcing their opinions and beliefs on the minority, then you really can't have a democracy of any size without. There will always be some people that disagre