Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
1,102 bytes added ,  00:59, December 16, 2009
Line 249: Line 249:  
::::Evan, as I said before, biblical texts do not have any basis for law. Strictly following the rules of one religion makes a government that does not separate itself from the church, as a government needs to be in order to be fair. I'm not against the freedom of religion, as everyone has the right to believe what he or she chooses. However, imposing your religious values upon others violates their religious freedom.
 
::::Evan, as I said before, biblical texts do not have any basis for law. Strictly following the rules of one religion makes a government that does not separate itself from the church, as a government needs to be in order to be fair. I'm not against the freedom of religion, as everyone has the right to believe what he or she chooses. However, imposing your religious values upon others violates their religious freedom.
 
DaCheatBot, besides ignoring our naming conventions, you've also made a number of illogical points here.  First, you're assuming what you are attempting to prove: that homosexual "marriage" is marriage.  You can't use that claim to support your argument, because that's what you want to prove, not a fact accepted by all sides.  Gay "marriage" isn't marriage anymore than a pet rock is a real pet.  Second, you endorse polygamy, which frankly leaves me astounded.  Why not allow people to marry animals?  Why not allow people to kill and steal?  Are you against the entire Bible, or just most of it?  Which brings me to your third point - that the Bible has no place in law.  Believe what you want, but the Bible is the origin of all law.  I suggest you read it sometime. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:40, 15 December 2009 (EST)
 
DaCheatBot, besides ignoring our naming conventions, you've also made a number of illogical points here.  First, you're assuming what you are attempting to prove: that homosexual "marriage" is marriage.  You can't use that claim to support your argument, because that's what you want to prove, not a fact accepted by all sides.  Gay "marriage" isn't marriage anymore than a pet rock is a real pet.  Second, you endorse polygamy, which frankly leaves me astounded.  Why not allow people to marry animals?  Why not allow people to kill and steal?  Are you against the entire Bible, or just most of it?  Which brings me to your third point - that the Bible has no place in law.  Believe what you want, but the Bible is the origin of all law.  I suggest you read it sometime. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:40, 15 December 2009 (EST)
 +
I apologize for the name, I was not aware that it was a violation.
 +
 +
The idea that gay marriage is marriage is not an illogical idea. It is the union of people who love each other. That is what marriage is. And just to respond to your analogy, a pet rock is not the same as a real pet because it does not fit the qualifications. Gay marriage does because it fits the idea that I said before on that it is based on love. A person marrying an animal is not love (Not romantic love anyway) because the animal is not able to give consent of sound mind. Killing and stealing also cause great harm to others, unlike gay marriage, which does absolutely nothing to others. Lastly, the bible may have been the foundation of law, but we have made many, many changes. While certain may have been right all along, such as murder and stealing, others are not  because they follow a culture that is thousands of years old. The same way that the original American Constitution is not used in a court of law, but the amended version, the one that defines men and women as equals as well as whites and blacks as equals.
3

edits

Navigation menu