Hurray for San Francisco!

[Timosity]

To answer earlier posts, yeah - I messed up. I said the earth was 2,000 years old because...actually... I have no hell of an idea why I said that...maybe I was just really tired, I have no clue  The rest of you were right - the earth is about 4,000 (5,000 at the absolute most) years old.

Just on this part I'd have to totally disagree, if you are going on evidence in a book that uses lots of metaphors (and did you read the bit about a day not being a day in our terms) I think what I mentioned about light is proof enough, and I know SSH had a valid argument, but that is really just clutching at straws.

I seriously think (IMO) that most christians have been in denial for thousands of years and some are now realising that not all they've learned is true (sure a lot of it is) but why try and convince yourself of things that are even obvious to you, couldn't be possible. (drug addicts are good at rationalising things to themself too, but are they right?) there are too many flaws in the story "physically", maybe the years got mixed up just like in FOA, and 5,000 really means 50 Million or 50 Billion, now I think that is more likely, and is quite possible, would explain Dinosaurs & Stars. I think this particular error has been argued many times before.

And if you literally hear God speak to you, it's called a delusion, you need to seek a doctor straight away,

he only speaks to you in other ways (conveniently) like you get a pay rise, so you have extra money to donate to a charity. (which is not really God talking, it's just using your mind the way you were brought up (brainwashing)) but if it works for you, you can claim it was God telling you but it really wasn't, unless God is in your mind (then that's a Delusion)

I have witnessed a couple of friends having Delusions in real life and it's quite scarey, it's quite similar to the way they portray people possessed in movies, it's like it's not really them, even though they are right there, they seem confused & aggitated, and don't seem to make all that much sense.

It's usually a Lithium imbalance, which means they are given Lithium, which Is a very serious substance that I won't go into.

I don't know why I brought any of this up, but you can see how certain things said can be miss interpreted, like hearing the word of God.

Can Homosexual couples get Married in SF yet, have we convinced them enough

[Meowster]

Marriage is also a religious issue because it's a religious concept.

And nowhere in the bible does it say that a Gay Couple cannot get married.

It does, however, state that they should be killed for their sin.

All sin is sin, no matter how big or small.

We are all born sinners.

Therefore, we should all be killed at birth.

Because if Gays should be killed for their sin, then so should we.

Because a sin is a sin.

And if you're going to disobey the bible by not allowing Gay Marriages, which it does NOT ban, you're also disobeying the bible because it says Gay People should be 'put to death' for the act of being gay, which clearly, people are not obeying.

You could say that God did not intend for Gay People to live longer enough to marry so he didn't have to make that rule about marriage. It goes without saying.

But then, maybe so does allowing Gay People driving licenses, food, water, housing... anything. Maybe we shouldn't be doing that. He never mentioned that we should or should not give them food or water either.

Looks like people are cherry-picking from the bible, and when there's no cherry to pick, they break off part of the branch.

God never forbade a gay marriage.

To assume things on behalf of god is a sin.

So by not killing gay people, we are sinning. By not letting them marry we are also sinning, because we're forbading it on behalf of god.

I see a flaw. Or at least, I did, before my head exploded.

[DGMacphee]

Sylph, that is one of the most interesting theories I've heard -- that dinosaurs might have come from another planet.

But even then, they'd still be older than us.

[shbaz]

Yuf, the concept of marriage is not unique to any specific religion or culture, especially not christianity. It's a natural thing for two people in love to pair together for life.

[Meowster]

I know. What I mean is that the main argument people use against gay marriage is that it's a christian thing, and that's why there's so much by way of religious argument.

Of course I believe that religion shouldn't even be an issue in this, but quite frankly it's the only issue. Without religion blasting people with anti-gay propaganda, the minority of true homophobic people would be practically void an of course, gay people would be allowed marry.

If athiests and devil worshippers and people who aren't in love are allowed marry by law, and if criminals are allowed marry, and people are allowed marry for money or fame, or for publicity stunts... if none of that is against the law, then to refuse to allow a gay couple to marry, whether or not you're christian, is purely discriminitive.

[TheYak]

Marriage is not a strictly religious concept.  I'm definately shouting alongside some of the others here, "Religion's got nothing to do with an act of government!"  However, the reality is that a very significant portion of American society is raised with a Christian upbringing and still keeps Christian values in the forefront, regardless of whether or not they're still practicing their faith.  Since these are the people who will be backing the constitutional amendment proposition, these are the people we've got to argue against.  Those here of this particular faith, I don't mean to pick on you but without generalizations, these posts become novellas.

Yufster: It could be rude of me to say but you're pulling facts, quotes, contradictions and theories out of second-hand knowledge, internet searches and suppositions.  What the fundamentalist you talked to should've replied with is that the death for homosexuality law was done away with.  God ruled more stringently and required adherance to precise guidelines that he had set.  In the new testament (and it's called that for this very reason) Jesus said [paraphrased] "I say to you, no more an eye for an eye, for through me God has made a new convenant." He goes on to talk about 'turning the other cheek,' 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you', 'love thy neighbor as thyself.'  So, the death-penalty for all thing doesn't quite work.  

Similarly, it should be mentioned that not all sins are created equal.  That is, different sins merited different penalties.  There were some sins atoned for by sacrificing animals, others by asking forgiveness of the person you wronged and still others punishable by death.  There is even one sin that the New Testament mentions is unforgivable - blasphemy of the Holy Spirit's work giving testimony to Jesus.  (somewhere around Mk. 3:29; Lk. 12:10) Of course, it's not as plausible a sin today since the Jesus guy isn't strolling around so much anymore.  

The thread ought to be re-labelled or simply done away with, it's so far off-topic with no resolution in sight.  I'll bow out now.

[SSH]

Actually, Yufster is stating something pretty close to the views that George Whitfield had:

All of us are sinners
The wages of sin are death
therefore we all deserve death

What Yakspit says about atonement is true: a lot of the Law books of the old testament are saying that the atonement for sin X is Y... death of a lamb, death of a cow, etc. etc.

The message of Jesus was actually to toughen up the law: all sins deserve death. And Jesus said that he came not to abolish the law but to fulfil it. Thus he died in our stead. So our death is no longer required.

So we can just do what we like, then, eh?

Well, Jesus also said "Repent, or you will perish". I beleive that Jesus has made just one qualification for entry to heaven:

Be sorry for the bad things that you have done and ask him to bear the punishment. Obviously, this implies actually believing in him.

Now, you can take the gamble that you'll be alive on your deathbed to repent of all those things. Myself, I try to repent daily, becuase I do bad things every day. But it is hard to repent when you know that you're just going to go and do it again tomorrow. Maybe even after you die then Jesus comes to you and says "Bet you're sorry now, eh?" and most people (there's always SOME who wouldn't) would say, "Ooops, sorry, please forgive me" and go to heaven too. That's a deity's prerogative, as Jonah found out.

Now, I could take advantage of God's grace in all this, but that would imply that I've missed the point and also it would be mightily ungrateful. For every extra sin I commit, Jesus has to bear an extra load on the cross for me, so I'll do my best to try and reduce that burden.

One of the problems that Luther had with the Catholic church at the time he posted his theses was that they had gone back to the idea of paying out specific amounts of good works, prayers or purgatory for each sin, which is exactly what Jesus came to abolish.

So, the bible reads to me like certain sexual acts are a sin. To others, it reads that such laws were cutural or metaphorical or mistranslated, or whatever.I hope they sincerely beleive that, and are not just looking for an excuse to do what they want. But if they beleive in Jesus's grace, I think they'll end up in heaven. It's God's opinion on it that really matters and I trust him to do what is good. So really, what then for gay marriage? I don't think that Christianity was ever meant to be a set of laws for a state to follow, but rather a moral guide for those whithin any state that believed in it. So let states do what they wish, and hopefully they will follow their consicence to try and eliminate inequalities, unfairness and hatred. The US isn't heading in that direction just now.

[shbaz]

So let states do what they wish, and hopefully they will follow their consicence to try and eliminate inequalities, unfairness and hatred. The US isn't heading in that direction just now.

Poll: Kerry has big California lead, Bush's ratings have plunged

With a little luck, we will be. I think if a law passes through Congress and is signed before election, the Supreme Courts will just strike it down. Constitutionally, it isn't right.

[Yakwork]

More or less back on subject and also mildly amusing:
http://www.whitehouse.org/dof/marriage.asp

I haven't got a bible on my person ATM to check their references but there's a bit taken out of context.  

[Meowster]

Not only writing discrimination into the constitution, but they're writing Christianity into a constitution that claims to promote freedom of religion.

[TerranRich]

Threads like this become 8 pages long because people side-track by talking about dinosaurs and replying with a smiley only.

The simple point is this: The issue is NOT to force churches to marry gays, it's for the government to marry gays. If it were to force churches to do so, I could see religious zealots and other people saying "It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!" Instead, it's about the government. I don't think many gays would WANT to marry in a Catholic church anyway.

I don't see any other argument making sense, because if you argue religiously, your argument is automatically null and void.

[shbaz]

I don't think many gays would WANT to marry in a Catholic church anyway.

I wouldn't think they'd want anything to do with churches at all, but then there is that gay Bishop. I don't understand how they could be a part of a religion with so much hate against them in the Bible.