Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate: Can God explain all of the conspiracy theories and all other phenonmena?

2009-12-06T14:31:35Z

LTS: Created page with 'Can God tie all conspiracies theories together with all other phenomena. We can include Satanist, Ghosts, Mediums, Aliens, Aductions, JFK, RFK, Mind control etc. Can any another ...'

Can God tie all conspiracies theories together with all other phenomena. We can include Satanist, Ghosts, Mediums, Aliens, Aductions, JFK, RFK, Mind control etc. Can any another "theory"?

I believe God does and nothing else can. The Bible tell us of many coming things and when you look around they are everywhere. From ghost stories to alien abductions, where would these things come from? Science has some answers to the physical to a point but it stops short. It has no answers to the supernatural but denies it, even though there are many people that will testify for it. We still have not addressed presidential assassinations, other secret societies, and the list goes on. I do see this as the good/evil struggle as told in the Bible. How can we explain it all of it were not true?

Conservapedia:Debate Topics

2009-12-06T14:19:27Z

LTS: /* Religious debates */

'''Debate topic suggestions, organized so that it's not necessary to delete them.'''

(Note: If some topic is miscategorized, it can be cut and pasted without affecting the relevant links.)

==Philosophical Debates==
# [[Debate:Can Conservapedia become the next Wikipedia, is this good or bad]]
# [[Debate:If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does History Matter?|Does History Matter?]]
# [[Debate:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?]]
# [[Debate:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?]]
# [[Debate:Can any man live without some code of morality?]]
# [[Debate:Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?]]
# [[Debate:Why is there something rather than nothing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Stem Cells| Embryonic Stem Cells: Why or why not?]]
# [[Debate:Why Reason?]]
# [[Debate:Why does the conservative media often an ugly undertone?]]
# [[Debate:Should pharmacists be forced to fill legal prescriptions they personally object to on moral grounds?]]
# [[Debate:What is the real love?]]
# [[Debate:who created God?]]
# [[Debate: Why have conservatives let themselves get a bad name?]]
# [[Debate: Is it possible for God to be timeless?]]
# [[Debate: Is it possible for man to live a moral life without religion?]]
# [[Debate: How do conservatives view the Open Source movement and software?]]
# [[Debate: At what point does "Human" life begin?]]

==Religious debates==
# [[Debate:Does God punish sinners for eternity?]]
# [[Debate: Should certain books be banned from libraries?]]
# [[Debate: Is communism founded on Christian doctrine?]]
# [[Debate:Should the first story of creation be read allegorically or literally?]]
# [[Debate:Is Scientology a false religion?]]
# [[Debate:Why do Moses, Ezra, Jesus, and Paul all disagree on divorce?]]
# [[Debate:Did Jesus ever claim to be God?]]
# [[Debate:Grave errors/inconsistencies in the Bible make literal translation worthless.]]
# [[Debate:Was Jesus born in the right time and place?]]
# [[Debate:What does Christianity say about homosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?]]
# [[Debate:Did God create evil?]]
# [[Debate:Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?]]
# [[Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?]]
# [[Debate:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?]]
# [[Debate:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?]]
# [[Debate:AntiSemitism]]
# [[Debate:Does Intelligent Design deny the Existence of God?]]
# [[Debate:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?]]
# [[Debate:What is the relationship between religion and the human tendency to kill each other?]]
# [[Debate:Natural Disaster versus Act of God]]
# [[Debate:What is the Sabbath day?]]
# [[Debate:Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?]]
# [[Debate:Why do we still perform Baptisms?]]
# [[Debate:Does the Resurrection negate Gods Sacrifice of his only son?]]
# [[Debate:If most Muslims learned their religion from their parents, just like us Christians, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Debate:If_most_Christians_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Muslims%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|Debate:If most Christians learned their religion from their parents, just like us Muslims, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Debate:Does mainstream Islam endorse violence?]]
# [[Debate:Is religion morally wrong?]]
# [[Debate:Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?]]
# [[Debate:Why the Bible|Debate:What makes the Bible a reliable source of knowledge besides tradition?]]
# [[Debate:Why should we be afraid of God?]]
# [[Debate:Do conservative Christians have an unquestioning faith which is comparable to that of the Party in the book 1984?]]
# [[Debate:Antisemitism]]
# [[Debate:Are Christianity and the Bible superior to other religions and scriptures?]]
# [[Debate:Is "Coercive Interrogation" consistent with Christian Values?]]
# [[Debate:Should all access to Conservapedia be banned on Sundays?]]
# [[Debate:Mary Magdalene - First Witness to the Resurrection - Significance?]]
# [[Debate:Was Christ a fundamentalist?]]
# [[Debate:Atheism vs. Deism]]
# [[Debate:Atheism vs. Pastafarianism]]
# [[Debate:Why is homosexuality so bad?]]
# [[Debate:Are Young Earth Creationists detracting others from the Faith?]]
# [[Debate:Would the Flood and Noah's Ark cause inbreeding?]]
# [[Debate:Is there 1 God or are there many gods?]]
# [[Debate: Can you be a true Christian and believe in evolution?]]
# [[Debate:Should gay marriage be allowed?]]
# [[Debate:Is atheism a religion?]]
# [[Debate: If not naturalism, how do we decide which supernatural explanation is correct?]]
# [[Debate: Are Catholics Christians?]]
# [[Debate: Do Atheist believe they have a soul?]]
# [[Debate:Were Judas' actions necessary and foreordained?]]
# [[Debate: Is it possible to voluntarily convert one's religion?]]
# [[Debate: Can Christianity exist without Apostles and Prophets?]]
# [[Debate: What do you think about the violence in the Bible?]]
# [[Debate: Could Christian denominations exist without the Catholic Church?]]
# [[Debate: Which version of the Bible should be used as the authoritative reference on Conservapedia?]]
# [[Debate: Should Christians celebrate Christmas?]]
#[[Debate:Either God is indecisive or the world's major religions have ALL got it wrong]]
#[[Debate:Creationist]]
#[[Debate:Did Joan of Arc truly hear voices?]]
#[[Debate:Do ALL suicides go to hell?]]
#[[Debate:Epicurus' Trilemma]]
#[[Debate: Why does God care if we worship Him or not? Is it His ego?]]
#[[Debate: Can God explain all of the conspiracy theories and all other phenonmena?]]

==Historical debates==
# [[Debate:Was Benjamin Franklin a deist?]]
# [[Debate:Was the European colonization of the Americas good for the native people?]]
# [[Debate:Was President George H. W. Bush wrong to leave Saddam in power in 1991?]]
# [[Debate:Which was worse? the Civil War and it's effects or slavery?]]
# [[Debate:Why are most actors turned politicians Republicans?]]
# [[Debate: Did the Founding Fathers intend to apply their personal faith to the nation "As an institution"?]]

==Political debates==
# [[Debate:Does Abstinence Only Education help or hurt us?]]
# [[Debate:Is homosexuality responsible for totalitarianism?]]
# [[Debate: Did the Founders have a religious motive?]]
# [[Debate: To what extent should we have obscenity laws]]
# [[Debate: Is communism founded on Christian doctrine?]]
# [[Debate:Why do we still have an embargo on Cuba?]]
# [[Debate:Has Britain Declined?]]
# [[Debate:Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?]]
# [[Debate:Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?]]
# [[Debate:You think these Phd's are nuts?]]
# [[Debate:Does the European Union pose a threat to the United States?]]
# [[Debate:Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Debate:Define torture]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States have entered World War I?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States have entered World War II?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea|Debate:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea as General Douglas MacArthur wanted?]]
# [[Debate:Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Debate:Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|Debate:If President Roosevelt had known about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?]]
# [[Debate:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?]]
# [[Debate:Was world war inevitable?]]
# [[Debate:Does "free trade" increase wealth rather than simply redistribute it?]]
# [[Debate:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?]]
# [[Debate:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?]]
# [[Debate:Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States leave the United Nations?]]
# [[Debate:Crusades... Good or Bad?]]
# [[Debate:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?]] See [[Michael New]]
# [[Debate:Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or communism?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?]]
# [[Debate:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?]]
# [[Debate:Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?]]
# [[Debate:Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?]]
# [[Debate:Women in the Military?]]
# [[Debate:Should students learn a foreign language?]]
# [[Debate:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?|Debate:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religious?]]
# [[Debate:Should there be a consistent standard on human rights applied to left and right?]]
# [[Debate:Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?]]
# [[Debate:Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.]]
# [[Debate:Is President Bush good for America?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Iraq War a success?]]
# [[Debate:Does single sex schooling promotes homesexuality?|Debate:Does Single sex schooling promote homosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:Is the murder of 3,000 people just a few or is it a lot? Does it make a difference if the murdered people are Americans?]]
# [[Debate:Does the media really have a liberal bias?]]
# [[Debate:What kind of leader will Democrats make if they run from debates on Fox?]]
# [[Debate:Are the Democrats capable of fighting terrorism?]]
# [[Debate:Can a rogue nation be thought of as a sovereign nation?]]
# [[Debate:Has Russia reinstalled stealth communism?]]
# [[Debate:Do we all know what Democrat Presidential candidates stand for yet?]]
# [[Debate:Define Civil War]]
# [[Debate:Should gun sales to terror suspects be allowed?]]
# [[Debate:Is Darwinism liberal or is it conservative?]]
# [[Debate:Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?]]
# [[Debate:Restoring the USA image in the world, just a fancy phrase that means zilch?]]
# [[Debate:Placing the blame on how America got polarized]]
# [[Debate:Is most government criticism really patriotic?]]
# [[Debate:Is environmentalism mostly about preserving natural resources?]]
# [[Debate:Is the conservative stance on illegal immigration going to loose the Hispanic vote for the GOP in the 08' election?]]
# [[Debate:Third Party Debate]]
# [[Debate:Who kills more innocent people: religious believers or atheists?]]
# [[Debate:Preferred Democrat for the White House?]]
# [[Debate:Does Republican equal conservative? Does Democrat equal liberal?]]
# [[Debate:Obama's preacher.]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States begin Colonizing Space?]]
# [[Debate:Should the federal government have the power to define marriage?]]
# [[Debate:The Declaration of Independence or Interdependence?]]
# [[Debate:Should the U.S.A. abide by a withdrawal timetable if the Iraqi Parliament votes for one?]]
# [[Debate:Should U.S. troops be subject to Iraqi law if that allows our continued presence there?]]
# [[Debate:Should government restrictions on smoking be tightened or rolled back?]]
# [[Debate:Is Sarah Palin an asset or a liability to John McCain's candidacy?]]
# [[Debate:Is a candidate's military record relevant anymore?]]
# [[Debate:Should politicians be allowed to misspeak?]]
# [[Debate: What is sufficient proof that Obama is a Muslim?]]
# [[Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?]]
# [[Debate:Was McCain's threat to pull out of the debates a political stunt?]]
# [[Debate:If Obama Was Conservative]]
# [[Debate:What level of Gun Control is appropriate?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Bush administration's Conscience Rule a step forward or backward for U.S. Healthcare?]]
# [[Debate: Why do political views appear to be correlated with others?]]
#[[Debate:What should be America's policy toward Islam]]?
#[[Debate:Is the American Occupation of the Hawaiian Islands justified?]]
#[[Debate:Was the American involvement in the Vietnam War justified?]]
#[[Debate:Was the North right to prevent Southern secession in the US Civil War?]]
#[[Debate:Is the 2009 Stimulus Plan the right approach, and if not what would be?]]
# [[Debate:Is Obama being unfairly criticized, or is too much being expected of our new president?]]
# [[Is it possible to be conservative and know there is no possibility of there ever being a "God" and/or higher being?]]
# [[Debate:Is Obama an Atheist?]]

==Economic debates==
# [[Debate: Can there be price controls without shortages?]]

==Scientific debates==
# [[Debate:Why haven't intelligent designists published a single scientific article?|Debate:If intelligent design is just as valid as evolution, where are all their scientific findings and publishings?]]
# [[Debate:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?]]
# [[Debate:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a species?]]
# [[Debate:Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?]]
# [[Debate:Is the theory of macroevolution true?]]
# [[Debate:Is Giving Birth the Bible Way Better?]]
# [[Debate:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?]]
# [[Debate:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?]]
# [[Debate:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?]]
# [[Debate:God, Earth and Global Warming]]
# [[Debate:Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing?|Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing?]]
# [[Debate:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?|Debate:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?]]
# [[Debate:Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?]]
# [[Debate:Who feels that scientific related articles should only reference published research papers instead of websites when dealing with research instead of application?]]
# [[Debate:If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal, then would this support or refute ther idea of Creation by God?|Debate:If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal]]
# [[Debate:Why are God's works always questioned?]]
# [[Debate:Are there any elements of choice, when it comes to carrying out homosexual acts?|Debate:Are there any elements of choice]]
# [[Debate:Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing]]
# [[Debate:Is homosexuality a mental illness?]]
# [[Debate:Can the science of evolution be separated from the philosophy of it?]]

==Debates about Conservapedia==
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia representing a conservative POV or a Young Earth Creationist POV?]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia anti-British?]]
# [[Debate:The liberal quotient of Conservapedia; what is it? Does it matter?]]
# [[Debate:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?]]
# [[Debate:Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?]]
# [[Debate:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]]
# [[Debate:Can Conservapedia Succeed?]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?]]
# [[Debate:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?]]
# [[Debate:What exactly is Conservapedia?]]
# [[Debate:Was the media attention needed?]]
# [[Debate:Conservapedia Debate Topics full of far left liberal netroots]]
# [[Debate:Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Debate:Where do you personally look for facts and information on topics "When did Brahms live" or "Why did Monet paint grainstacks?"]]
# [[Debate:Is it okay for Conservapedia to have biased articles?]]
# [[Debate:Who deletes entire discussion items from here? And why?]]
# [[Debate:Why do users, who contribute substantially, choose to leave this community?]]
# [[Debate:Is the use of copyrighted photographs without permission stealing?]]
# [[Debate:Are there too many debates on Conservapedia?]]
# [[Debate:Is it tasteless for Conservapedia to critique the Virginia Tech poem on the Main Page?]]
# [[Debate:Has anyone ever been been banned for pointing out that many of the other entries on this site are in need of citation and evidence to back up statements?]]
# [[Debate:Does an encyclopedia define complex subjects, or insert more bias into them?]]
# [[Debate:Do sysops block editing on pages when it seems their opponents are making strong points?]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia a 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia'?]]
# [[Debate:Does altering the record of debate in a wiki 'Encyclopedia' render the entire thing a farce?]]
# [[Debate:Democrats next move, link more stories of heartache like those from Kansas to Gulf Coast.]]
# [[Debate:Do quotes used to support a theory just make an article look stupid?]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia blinkered?|Is Conservapedia blinkered?]]
# [[Debate:Does Conservapedia censor opponents the way Expelled says ID advocates are censored?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Conservapedia Logo in violation of US Flag Code?]]
# [[Debate:The 90/10 rule exists soley to squash debate, and should be eliminated]]
# [[Debate:What will Conservapedia be like if Barack Obama wins the election?]]
# [[Debate:Which is more important, economic or social conservatism?]]
# [[Debate:Should the Conservapedia logo be changed?]]

==Funny, maybe?==

# [[Debate:Are cats just useless Dogs]]
# [[Debate:Is the Platypus evidence that God has a sense of humour?]]
# [[Debate:Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault?]]
# [[Debate:Are video games getting better or worse as graphics, sound, and gameplay complexity improve?]]
# [[Debate:Favorite old time radio show]]
# [[Debate: Does Harry Potter promote Satanic witchcraft?]]

==Other==
# [[Debate:Are alcohol, marijuana, and nicotine gateway drugs?]]
# [[Debate:Is Rap music torture?]]
# [[Debate:Should marijuana be legalized?]]
# [[Debate:What are the lessons that we should take away from the Milgram Experiment]]
# [[Debate:Does the Theory of Evolution promote atheism?]]
# [[Debate:Mall Shootings]]
# [[Debate:Creationist]]
# [[Debate:Is the Theory of Evolution a conspiricy?]]
# [[Debate:How should we view the fact leading scientists do not believe in god?]]
# [[Debate:Does modern music negatively influence children]]
# [[Debate:Propaganda in childrens' television]]
# [[Debate:What Is Music?]]
#[[Debate:Why are there so few homosexual athletes]]

[[Category:Conservapedia]]

Debate:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?

2009-12-06T13:55:23Z

LTS:

{{debate}}

== Always necessary ==
With One Exception: [[God]]. Any [[science|scientist]] is familiar with ''fundamental properties of nature'' that neither he nor any of his colleagues can possibly explain--except to say, "That's the way [[God]] made them."

But an ''action'', or a ''process'' (which is a series of actions), ''never'' occurs without cause. Sometimes the cause is another, similar action that eventually provoked it. Such a thing is similar to a term in a [[mathematics|mathematical]] [[sequence]]. To illustrate, the set of counting numbers is a sequence. Every number Ni after the number 1 is equal to N(i-1) + 1. But--''the set of counting numbers, as a sequence, had to have a definite first number.'' In this case, that number is 1. (The set of non-directed whole numbers behaves similarly, but its first number is 0, not 1.)

But, you ask, what about the set of [[integer]]s, which is directed? That has neither beginning nor end. True--but the set of integers is not a sequence. Sequences, by definition, have beginnings, though they do not necessarily have ends.

::::This is a flawed appeal to causality. On a quantum level, events need not have a cause.-Barnes

Number theory: Integers can be counted by re-ordering them (eg, 0, 1, -1, 2, -2...). Real (ie, rational + irrational) numbers cannot be counted & are a higher level of infinity. How would they have a beginning?[[User:Tom Stockton|Tom Stockton]] 21:46, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:I already said that integers are not a sequence. By definition, a sequence has a first term.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:55, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

''Any process in nature must be a sequence.'' The beating of your heart is a sequence. And the descent of human beings from generation to generation is a sequence. But that, too, had to have a beginning. That beginning must have been the first couple--or, to an [[atheist]], it is simply the first species, and ultimately, the first cell.

And where did that first cell come from? Even [[Charles Darwin]] frankly admitted that, if that first cell could not have assembled itself from simpler raw materials, then the mechanism of the origin of life would become impossible to imagine.

::::Misquoting Darwin are we? -Barnes

''Something'' had to make that first cell. Even if you assume, like [[Francis Crick]], that the first cell on [[earth]] came from another [[planet]], you then have to ask whence came the first cell on that planet. Did that first cell come from yet another planet?

Even that sort of process would have to have a first planet--because once upon a time, no such things as planets existed. Anywhere. Unless you somehow want to assume that the universe is in a steady state. Does any [[astronomy|astronomer]] accept that proposition? I doubt it.

Those of you who maintain that the "first cause" creates problems of its own, should present those problems here.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:14, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:A few questions-
#WHY is a diety exempted from first causes?
#How does your reasoning square itself with many aspects of quantum theory, where Effects can occur spontaneously and without Cause. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::In answer: [[God]] ''is'' the ultimate First Cause of everything. He is Eternal. If He were not, then He wouldn't be God.
::The creation of the universe is a quantum-level event.

#You have not explained why a diety is exempt from needing a cause, you have simply asserted that you believe it is.
#All physicists consider the creation of the universe a quantum level event
#Do you disagree that non-causality is present in quantum physics? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 08:43, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Indeed, if the Universe had a creation at all, it would ''have'' to be a quantum event. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:48, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::You have just suggested an explanation for [[God]]--that He ''is'' a Quantum Entity.

:::::Why is such a complex being a necessity in a field that we have already established is exempt from causality? -Barnes

:::I'm not sure that I accept that, however--because ours is a remarkably ''ordered'' universe. Can quantum processes produce order? And such order as we still see? I doubt it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:05, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::"ours is a remarkably ''ordered'' universe"-- Compared to what? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 12:43, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::Our universe is ordered by any reasonable standard whatsoever. The closest we can come to the "standard of comparison" you demand above is the reasonable expectation of order from the laws of probability, and in particular the Law of Averages. Specifically, value after value after value, among what physicists today call the "defined constants" of the universe, lies within a ''very'' narrow tolerance for life even to exist. An honest statistician could accept maybe one such value falling within such a narrow tolerance--but hundreds? The odds against that are nothing short of astronomical. That's what I mean by an ordered universe--ordered to allow life to exist and to thrive.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:48, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::The standard for life is not a standard which is free from personal bias. Symmetrically, our universe is inferior to the complete high energy symmetries which existed within the first milliseconds of the big bang.[[User:Barnes|Barnes]]

::::''God'' is subject to the rules of quantum physics?

::::As to 'order' - leaving aside for now the question of precise definition - there's one example that leaps to mind; quantum fluctuations during inflation lead to density perturbations in the early Universe, which seed the formation of large-scale structure. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:10, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

How would quantum fluctuations cause an inflation? Surely the vacuum energy would be the same as it is now and thus cause infinitely more expansions than simply the one bang.

:::::And BTW: what you put in sounds like [[Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:09, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I am not a physician, or a scientist, but I only know one thing. Except God, something cannot come from nothing/out of nowhere, although it is what the evolutionism always try to promote. Well, there is also a view that the world/universe is always here. Not quite possible under the second law of thermodynamic? As far as I know, no physical stuffs can be exist forever.[[User:Kmcheng|Kmcheng]] 11:46, 25 December 2008 (EST)

=== A creator? ===
<reduce indent>

I think we're talking at cross purposes. I never mentioned God. I think you were thrown by my use of the word 'creation.' I simply meant it as shorthand for the beginning of the Universe; it wasn't intended to imply the act of a creator. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:14, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well, maybe you weren't. But I was, and am.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:41, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Ah; so when you said "The creation of the universe is not a quantum-level event," you weren't referring to naturalistic models, but to divine creation? That sounds suspiciously like [[Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong]] to me. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:::If you want to suggest that the First Moment in the universe--whatever you wish to call it--was a quantum-level event, and that your theory predicts that, that's fine. But then your theory has to account for the striking amount of order that we still see in the universe today.
:::And it has to account for a large number of findings that simply are not consistent with "spontaneous generation" of planets. Many of these findings are right here in our solar system--some on the earth itself, but others on the other planets.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:54, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::A quantum origin is one possibility; a past-eternal Universe is another. I already gave an example of one process which leads naturally to order. This is getting a bit off-topic, though. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Theological subarguments and TerryH's disagreements with inflation aside, two glaring questions haven't been answered-
#''Why'' would a diety be exempt from first causes? It is not sufficient to simply say that any diety would be exempt because they are a diety, that's circular logic. I want an explaination as to exactly why a diety would exist without a cause.
#Does TerryH accept that quantum mechanics contain non-causalities? He doesn't have to accept them as the cause of the universe, simply state whether or not he acepts their existance. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Since the debate seems to have ended, I'd like to propose a close with the answers '''No''','''Indeterminable''' and '''Indeterminable'''. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 09:26, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Indeterminable==

We won't know until we understand all of physics completely, and we may never get there.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Seconded. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 17:32, 12 November 2007 (EST)

==Causation itself is unnecessary==
Causation isn't even a part of modern physics. Physics, at least when it is being precise, speaks of the relations between physical objects, not of causes with effects. These attempts to prove the existence of God are ultimately just sophistry and they will convince no one. Read Matthew 13. --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 12:18, 17 November 2007 (EST)

Just because you can't see a cause does not mean it does not exist, only we have no way to presently find it. God does not exist only in the physical world but the supernatural too. This is a world we know little if anything of the way it works. There is plenty of witness accounts of this world from foretune tellers, ghost stories to out of body experiences and more. Unless you want to discount them because they just don't fit the rest of the story.

Debate:Either God is indecisive or the world's major religions have ALL got it wrong

2009-12-06T13:26:15Z

LTS:

There is a proliferation of 'revealed texts' within the world's major religions, with many contradictions and inconsistencies between them about the way to worship, how to behave, and the different stances that should be adopted, not to say accounts of how the universe is ordered and was created.

Either God couldn't make his mind up as to what people should do, OR not all of these accounts can possibly be correct. If it is the latter, then if let us assume that most of them are inferior copies of the 'one true revealed text'. How then, is one supposed to know which that would be, and follow the right path? If we assume that God is not deliberately deceitful, and that he is omniscient, he would not have put mankind in such a position that we had to choose the one true text from amongst all the others, with no clear guidance. Hence, it must be the case that none of these is correct, and we have to make our own mind up.

--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 12:37, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

There are basically only two religions: Grace - (unmerited favor - which is given through Holy Spirit quickening) and Works - which the "carnel" mind and the "natural" man believes) ie, I can find acceptance with God through my good works: Both contrasted in Cain and Abel, Jacob and Esau, the Pharasee and Publican.
All religions, except true Christianity, (encluding the religion of atheistic humanism - the worship of mans wisdom) are works religions. Some people who profess christianity, but rely on their supposed goodness for their salvation (like the Pharasee) are are part of the works group. It's interesting to consider that the Communist atheists used claims such as: we will have a "workers paradise" and a "utopia" - by the strength of mans mind and work. Anyhow, since we know that life exists, isn't it more REASONABLE to assume it always has been? (and that's God)
==We are on to you!==
Hey, Humanist, we all know how much you are down on all of the worlds religions. We've read all of your manifesters. It's funny when keep bashing God even though you really don't believe there is one. Keep telling us of your superior intellect that is able to single handedly make decisions for the common good of us all. Please, keep posting all of those baiting debate questions that show the rest of us foolish religionists who pray to our non-existing God.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:43, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Roo, i think that you should actually read what was first posted with an open, interested mind. Make an attempt to understand what is being said, as i am confident that you do in fact have a good intellect, you just need to use it in a more open way. What was said is quite interesting even for an atheist like myself, and raises a few interesting questions for religion. That is not to say that it disproves Gods existence, simply that i think that you would find it a lot more enjoyable if you took it upon yourself to either disprove what has been said in a logical and fair manner, or to supply a different theory, again in a logical manner. Please do attempt this, as i have found it far more entertaining then (in my case) simply insisting that there is no proof of God. Sincerely [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:09, 19 April 2007

::Gee, I thought I was just being sarcastic. Hint: I believe God exists and isn't being indecisive about it. So you think I don't have an open and interesting mind? Sorry to hear that.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:57, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Well i've seen a few of your posts in other topics and from what i see, it seems that you are not prepared to listen to what other people have to say in a fair manner. I may be way off the mark here, im just calling it as i see it. That you believe that is fine, its just that i think that you should be open to other ideas and opinions rather then barricading yourself behind a wall of sarcasm and just general lack of manners. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 18:02, 20 April 2007

::So you went to the effort to profile me? I'm honoured! Maybe this is a cultural thing but sarcasm isn't wall building. Neither is it malicious. Responding to a post from my own unique viewpoint isn't ill mannered to me. So, yes, way off the mark here. Let's agree to just stay on the topic of debate.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 12:03, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Well i think sarcasm is wall building as it can make having a serious discussion quite difficult, especially on a web page where it isnt always easy to tell sarcasm. Maybe i am taking your blunt speech to seriously and seeing it as insulting rather then just you. But yes, i agree. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 14:52, 21 April 2007

==Alternate suggestion==
God is omnipotent. That is, all things are possible for God. Ergo, it is entirely possible that all religions are correct simultaneously, but we humans, being confined to simple binary-based logic, are not able to perceive this. QED. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 20:54, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:No, that is a totally different religion based on Theosophy. A belief that all religions are actually just one. A believer of any other religion won't buy into that. Not because they are binary thinkers, but because their beliefs have distinctions that set them apart from other beliefs.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:49, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:: True; you are following the line of thinking of [[David Deutsch]] and [[David Kellogg Lewis]], whose philosophies claim that if you can create al logically possible world, then logically that world, can in fact exist, and under some definitions of reality, do existe somewhere in the [[Multiverse]].--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 15:16, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

==Different Point==
If I have an axe to grind, it is this: Whether or not you choose to believe in God, believing in a particular religion is a completely separate and independent personal decision. You can believe in god, and not be associate with any religion at all, and many people do in fact follow this path. However, there are many adherents of very different religions who claim that theirs is the only true text, and in following that logic, are prepared to kill & maim people of the opposite persuasion for no reason other than they see them as a threat to their beliefs. I cannot believe (I am sorry to those who say you cannot know the mind of God, but if God is minded to want me to go out and kill and maim other human beings in his name, then he is no god of mine) that any God worthy of the name would actually have created such a situation deliberately, by proliferating contradictory messages. This means that MOST of the world's religions must have invented their texts for their own reasons. How are we then expected to decide between these? On what basis? and how is it that they all attract adherents who are single minded, and so convinced that they are right? There is, to my mind, something fundamentally wrong with the idea of religion, per se, and following my logic above, wouuld lead me to conclude, not that god is indecisive, or that he doesn't exist, but that IF he exists, he would NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, have provided a 'one true text', simply because it is so easy to produce facsimiles which have all the attributes of a true text. but are, in fact false. Following this line of thinking would lead logically to a rejection of all organised religions, and to declare all revealed texts to be a sham.
--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 15:13, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

::I have found it a futile and vain exercise to presume what God will do. In the same manner that one would be able to presume what manner of logic a person would use to accuse the people of the worlds religions of being a sham. Especially when some of those religions have been around for thousands of years. History has taught us that some have used these religions for their wars and aspirations to power over others. It sounds like you prefer nihilism. Every person forms their own beliefs into doctrines that give them faith. This is the very definition of religion. If you hate all other religions it is only because your own demands it. Nihilists have been around for a long, long time. Who knows, maybe someday nihilism will be one of the major religions. But then it couldn't be, could it?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 12:52, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

There are many different paths to heaven.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:29, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::There are indeed. I've gone down many of those paths only to find out they were just cunningly devised fables. Often their version of Heaven is nothingness, oblivion. Sometimes just a fantasy. Many paths leading to many heavens with a god under every rock. Sorry, but I've already rejected all of the pagan religions. Why worship the creatures when their Creator is right there in front of you?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 22:29, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

I can't comment on whether or not God is indecisive as I don't think the One who created me is subject to my opinions. I do however believe that most of the world's major religions are not following the Biblical principles and have taught their own traditions in their place. i.e. Most religions keep Sunday as the Sabbath because they suscribe to the authority of the Roman church to change a law made by God Almighty.The powers that be in the Roman church have always admitted that Saturday was the 7th day Sabbath and claim the authority to change God's law by reason that most of the world has followed their lead. That doesn't make it right. The Bible says that the way is narrow and few will find it, meaning that most of the world will be deceived into false doctrines rather than taking the time and effort to discover the Biblical truth with prayer and diligent study. Salvation does require some effort on our part. We need to search for the truth and not be satisfied with what the common opinion appears to be at the time. www.sabbathtruth.com has some excellent information from members of all denominations on t his subject.``InHisImage

The sabbath commandment and law of Moses was a covenant for the people of ancient Israel which was fulfilled by the life of Jesus. I think to keep Sunday special is the best thing, but is up to your own conscience. Adam

Sunday has been celebrated because of the resurrection. Saturday is the Sabbath but NT teaches to keep all days Holy because they all belong to God. God also said he would write his law on ours hearts. Interesting to note that durind development of a fetus the first thing to form is the heart. However the first cells formed for the heart are brain cells. So the true word is in your heart, so it is actually being able to listen to it that makes the difference.

[[category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Debate:Should marijuana be legalized?

2009-12-05T20:43:14Z

LTS:

==Yes==
Yes, it's less addictive than nicotine, less harmful than alcohol, and thousands of people go to prison for possession. If it were legalized, scum bag drug dealers would be out of jobs, the price would plummet, drug lords would be nothing, the cops would be freer to pursue the hard drugs, and the prisons would be emptier. Smoking marijuana certainly isn't something I'd advocate, but I'd rather be an occasional weed smoker than a habitual tobacco smoker. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 11:29, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

It seems to be working in the Netherlands quite well, the few dealers there only sell to minors who're not allowed to buy it in a store.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Lots of things work better in the Liberal Netherlands.
If you compare the Netherlands with a less liberal small, densely populated western European democracy, like Britain, you see that of binge drinking, teenage pregnancy, and drug abuse are much higher. The UK, with it's tougher stance on alcohol, prostitution and illegal drugs has been voted by UNICEF as one of the worst places in the western world to be a child. The US is not far behind. This survey suggests that a more liberal society is a happier, healthier and safer society for children.[http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/021407HA.shtml].
--[[User:Eyupdutch|Eyupdutch]] 11:22, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::I do not understand why we see this and the prohibition against alcohol as separate issues. I know I am more of a libertarian for saying this, but why do we have the right to stop a consenting adult from doing this in the privacy of their own home? That just seems stupid to me. As for all the arguments in favor of a continued ban, what have they amounted to? More money to drug dealers, more people in prison, etc.... I would much rather see people try it, find out it is basically the same as alcohol (in terms of a ''buzz'') and then move on with their lives. And the vast, vast majority would move on. It is not addictive in the way tobacco is. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:57, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Cannabis would become less dangerous if the government could regulate it. If say, you traded the right to drive for the right to smoke pot, there should be fewer accidents caused by marijuana intoxication. If it's legal, the government can set a limit on how much is too much, like blood alcohol content. Lives of government officials would be saved from the war on drugs. Money would move away from the black market and places like Columbia. Plus, the government could tax it for extra revenue.--[[User:Smedricksman24|Smedricksman24]] 03:00, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

The way I see it marijuana is just as-or less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco products and they're legalized so why not marijuana too? --[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 04:22, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Legalize it so you can regulate it.

Totally! Not only for medical reasons...people will stop drinking and driving and move onto smoking and flying...one other thing though:
What about the smoking ban, I mean, will people be able to smoke in public places or will there be special areas in cities, or will we have the same rules that we do about smoking cigarettes.
Also, one question, does the smoking ban include cigars 'cos they are P.I.M.P whereas cigarettes are rather townie.
Just a wondering :) [User:bealecr] 15:57, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

It should be legalized, because it's none of the government's damn business what I do on my own property so long as it stays on my own property, and does not make me violent or suicidal or such.... That differentiates marijuana from cocaine, heroin, opium, pcp, lsd, even perscription drugs of abuse.... Plus, if it's legal it can be regulated more effectively - people smoke pot now and they go to drug dealers to get it, dealers who also want to sell them more dangerous drugs.... but if it is legal, people will go to the corner drugstore to get it from someone who won't even sell cigarettes to a 17-yr old. So I say make it legal for persons over 21 to buy, and if a handful do irresponsible things because of it, punish those irresponsible things, not all of society!! [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 23:38, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

By outlawing drugs, we have effectively turned over a huge section of the economy to criminals. Because they operate outside effective regulation, they pursue unethical marketing practices that are not allowed by legitimate businesses. They operate a multi-level marketing system where new users are recruited through free samples and peer pressure, and the victims can be any age. Once regular users, the victims then have an incentive to recruit other victims to pay for their habit. When new drugs arrive they use the distribution systems which are already set up, which is why cocaine penetrated the US market so quickly in the 1980s. The result is that outlawing drugs leads to higher usage. That is why the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada have higher rates of drug use and addiction than the Netherlands.

In addition to the damage that drugs cause, the activities of drug dealers have created an even greater crime problem as they battle for control of this profitable business. And of course many drug users turn to crime to support their habits.

Furthermore, it is a huge waste that the United States keeps one percent of its population in prison, mostly for drug-related offences, let alone the huge financial costs of law enforcement.

All of these are the unintended consequences of the failed War on Drugs.

Unfortunately it is easier to follow perceived common sense than to accept the evidence. Drugs are banned because they are harmful, but the ban is not working, merely making a bad situation worse. --[[User:The Four Deuces|The Four Deuces]] 21:36, 16 November 2007 (EST)

Yup IMO ,hey btw [[DrDaniel]]

yes, the cannabis trade is thriving, even if its not legal, and if the goverment tapped it, we could make massive amounts of money through taxation and regulation. Pot is also a fairly harmless drug if used responsibly. Sure its a danger if you get behind the wheel, but so it talking on your cell phone, eating and drinking, or many legal drugs like antihistamines and cough medicine. It is also literally impossible to OD on (unless you have 100% pure THC delivered at a high volume through an IV) nad has few negative health effects if used through a vaporizer or eaten. Sure there are people who smoke massive amounts of it, but the same is true with many legal substances. Besides that, hemp is an enomrmously useful plant--[[User:BenBr|BenBr]] 20:58, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

Speaking from an economic stand point yes. And here's how you do it. You leagalize not just mary jane, but most, or all drugs. You then take it and tax the holy hell out of it. you can even raise the prices depending on the toxicity of the drug. This is something that will actually raise revenue, unlike everything else the government does to try and make money. Because lets face it, the government is just as bad as the people who pay off credit cards with credit cards. I would not be surprised to hear "I didn't know what to do with the money, so I ate it" from the treasury. mattfelton

==No==

I'm not sure what my opinion on this matter is, but one serious issue that does need to be considered is that marijuana use at an early age has long-term effects on the brain. Legalizing marijuana may make it more likely for children in that younger age bracket to gain access to pot. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:39, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:Long-term effects on the brain? OH, you must mean Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol and Cannabidiol's neuroprotective and antioxidant properties. [http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=20965]

::It would be easier for minors to get access to alcohol if it were still prohibited. Bootleggers/importers don't care who's buying, as long as they have money.

Not really, even in the Netherlands you have to be at least 18 (identification is required) before you can buy weed legally.

If you're still a minor, you're gonna have to get it from a dealer, just as you would if weed were illegal, with the difference that in the country with legal weed there just are less dealers per capita because they have no adult costumers. [[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

: If you're a minor you'll do the same thing minors do to get alchohol in the US now, get an overage friend to supply you/act as a proxy. Much easier than going to a dealer. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:52, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:: It's actually a lot harder for me to get alcohol than it is to get marijuana. I can't find anyone who will buy me alcohol ever whereas all the dealers that live by me are some of the "friendliest" people I know. [[User:Rotskep|Rotskep]] 20:47, 12 November 2008 (CDT)

I'm coming down on "no" as well. Then again, I'd ban cigarettes too.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 13:53, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Cigarettes are patriotic, because they have a rich history in America and the government approves of them. Marijuana is unpatriotic and evil, because the money goes to terrorists and, even worse, Illegal Immigrant aliens. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 23:28, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:Though I suspect you are trolling by saying illegal aliens are worse than terrorists, you have to realize that most marijuana smoked in America is grown in America. Who would buy from a drug lord in Columbia when you can buy from Joe Schmoe down the road who grew it in his own home? ([[User:Pebusman|Pebusman]] 00:05, 11 April 2008 (EDT))

:Wait, are you serious Joe? I don't mean to bash on what you believe, but I find that to be a tad...."silly". [[user:thegovernator|thegovernator]]

Cigarettes are the result of slave labor and 400,000 American's deaths each year. Marijuana is one of the ingredients of Christ's anointing oil, know in the bible as kaneh bosm. Marijuana has also resulted in zero deaths from OD or even cancer, look it up if you don't believe me, the truth is out there.[[User:Independentthinker|Independentthinker]] 14:15, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

Marijuana is a dangerous gateway drug. If it were legalized, there would be awful consequences. [[User:HClinton|HClinton]] 20:24, 9 November 2007 (EST)
:you mean more personal freedom and less people getting criminal records for being in possession of a dried up flower? ([[User:Pebusman|Pebusman]] 00:05, 11 April 2008 (EDT))

I'm a noob at this editing thing so please go easy on me.
NO, marijuana should not be legalized just as I believe alcohol shouldn't being legal either. But, our government has too much to gain from the legalization of alcohol and as a result it will never become illegal. I'm well aware they tried it once before during the Prohibition and it simply didn't work. Marijuana is another drug just like alcohol and will only add to the many problems we already see in our society as a result of alcohol related injuries, deaths, illnesses, and public intoxication. Why add fuel to the fire? I believe too many people are already addicted to alcohol because it is so easily accessible to the general populace. I know of at least a handful of people that are alcoholics by definition. Should marijuana become legal we will only see more addictions and ultimately more problems associated with it. Last but not least, I don't want my tax dollars supporting yet another unnecessary item should marijuana become legal, not to mention the medical costs associated with it. Federal funding of abortion and the NEA are already more than I can stand to waste my tax dollars on. --[[User:Watchman|Watchman]] 23:07, 8 January 2008 (EST)
:Think about how much tax money is spent on the war on drugs, and then think about how much money the government could make off taxing marijuana, Marijuana is a multi billion dollar industry. ([[User:Pebusman|Pebusman]] 00:05, 11 April 2008 (EDT))
No. We don't need our government telling our children that its alright to burn your brain and body. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 00:09, 11 April 2008 (EDT)
:We don't need our government telling us what we can and can't put into our own bodies.([[User:Pebusman|Pebusman]] 00:24, 11 April 2008 (EDT))
:: Why not? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:06, 11 April 2008 (EDT)
:::May 25, 1981, 13 sailors were killed on the flight deck of USS ''Nimitz'', prompting the Navy to institute a "zero tolerance" policy regarding illegal drug use. Were drugs used indicriminantly by several of those sailors? Yes. Was marijunana used? Possibly. The point, Pebusman, is you might as well hang up getting your pro-joint views accepted here. It's not going to sit well with me at all. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 06:52, 11 April 2008 (EDT)
::::I am zero-tolerant to narcotics abuse, and double-zero-tolerant (its not a real word, I just made it up, but you get the point) to narcotics abuse in the Armed Forces. In my own service, I saw too many accidents caused by illicit drug use, including several fatal ones. A few years back, one of a pair of sentries accidentally shot his buddy through the abdomen at "point blank" range with a 9mm Sterling submachine gun. Although the victim survived and eventually recovered (''physically'' - the ''mental'' trauma remained with him for a long time afterwards, and I once came across him sobbing in the washrooms with fear just before he pulled another sentry duty) the "shooter" - an otherwise great guy, well-liked, due to be married tested positive for cannabis. While on subsequent leave under investigation, he drove his car head-on into a wall in an act of apparent suicide. A sad end to a young life. Many lives were affected by that instance of someone smoking a joint when they shouldn't have. As for the Nimitz incident, I think it should also be pointed out that, while some deck crew members tested positive for cannabis, it is widely held that it was pilot error which ''caused'' the incident. The illicit drug use was uncovered ''as a result'' of the crash. Just to clarify. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 13:23, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::Those are both sad stories but those are both problems that the navy/armed forces/what ever need to deal with on their own. As for ordinary citizens, the government should have absolutely no right to tell us what we can or can not put in to our bodies so long as we don't hurt anyone else. Innocent pedestrians and other drivers get killed every year as a result of drinking and driving, why don't we make that illegal? [[User:Rotskep|Rotskep]] 21:07, 11 November 2008 (CDT)

==Comments==
But we must remember that baning a product does not make it go away, most of the time it simply creates an illegal market for such things. As mentioned above legalizing marijuana would allow the government to regulate it. It would also make it less of a "gateway drug" as trying it would be a lesser issue if it were leagal. And as for banning cigaretts, while I do agree that no good comes out of them for the person smoking them (and the people around them)our econamy must (unfortunately) be considerd. How do you purpose to supplement the jobs of the tabacco farmers and sales people should cigarettes be banned? But on the other hand it is a little scary to think that our society is trying so hard to lose touch with reality.--HKK
:Banning a product ''does'' make it go away—most of it at least (and given suitable enforcement). Sure, there will always still be ''some'' around, but surely ''some'' is better than ''a lot''? I mean, you might as well "regulate" rather than "ban" things like assault, robbery, arson, etc. But of course we don't, because our goal, even though we don't expect to ever achieve it 100%, is to eliminate those things, because they are inherently ''wrong''.
:Additionally, regulation brings a whole slew of new problems. For example, if it still harms people (as it will), doesn't that make the government responsible for that harm? And "regulation" also means "banning" in limited ways. For example, if you "regulate" it, you probably still ''ban'' it for minors. Doesn't that undermine the principle? Doesn't that still encourage a black market? And even for adults, do you allow them total unrestricted access? As soon as you apply some restrictions (maximum quantities, limited strength, whatever), you are opening a black market for those who don't want to abide by those restrictions.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:08, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Please do not compare marijuana to things like assault, robbey, arson, etc. Those things do harm to other people, whereas smoking marijuana harms only the user. I for one believe people should be able to do whatever they want so long as no unconsenting party is hurt in the process. Legalize it for use in private residencies, but throw people caught using it in public in the drunk tank for a while. And banning things, at least in marijuana's case, does NOT make it go away, it was named the country's #1 cash crop, take a look: [[http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=2735017&Business=true]] ([[User:Pebusman|Pebusman]] 00:22, 11 April 2008 (EDT))
:::: Why the distinction between "other people" and "the user"? In both cases harm is being done. Okay, so you "believe people should be able to do whatever they want so long as no unconsenting party is hurt in the process". I don't believe that. Why is your belief correct and mine not? Of course, this is ignoring that marijuana ''does'' harm others. First, somebody under the influence could lose control (e.g. while driving) and harm someone else. Second, a person harming ''himself'' causes distress for those that care for them. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:06, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

::Philip, I would direct your attention to the article on [[Prohibition_in_the_United_States#Enforcement|The U.S. Prohibition Act]], in the hopes that it will cause you to mull over your stance a bit. If you read this Conservapedia article, you will see that while banning ''may'', ''in theory'' cause something to go away, it has a strong history of expensive failure. The expenses of such failure are not only monetary, but also manifest as extreme tolls taken on the happiness of those living amongst the struggle caused by the banning. -[[User:Simple|Simple]] 10:35 (GMT -5) 6 July 2007
::: That actually supports what I was saying, insofar as I said "given suitable enforcement". One of the problems with the American prohibition is that they left enforcement in the hands of revenue collectors! It might have been a totally different situation if the police had been able to enforce it. From what I've read on the prohibition, despite the poor enforcement, and despite the crime gangs that rose up to take advantage of that niche, overall crime dropped so much that prisons were being closed, hotel revenue went up as families were now prepared to visit them, sales of children's shoes went up, as there was household money available for them instead of it going on grog, and many other positive results. That is, as I said above, banning it ''did'' make it go away (for the most part)! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:46, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

::::First off, I should point out that it is unlikely that the U.S. Government would have repealed the Prohibition Act had the positive effects outweighted the negative. Secondly, while you are correct in saying that I have supported the initial plausibility of your theory, I have distinctly cited U.S. history which suggests more strongly that the banning theory is entirely unpractical. In the end, it is not the ''theory'' that is significant, but whether or not the theory holds water when applied. In this case, it has not. -[[User:Simple|Simple]] 10:55 (GMT -5) 6 July 2007

::::You might also note that, during the Prohibition, alcohol was still available to those who sought it. Do you think that making alcohol harder to obtain stopped even one desperate alcoholic from obtaining it? I find such a proposal unlikely. More likely, such families would have suffered terribly - forced to deal with crime lords, paying higher prices for a bootleg alcoholic product. Such products would have been produced in less sanitary conditions, and quite possibly laced with other substances to increase their 'potency'. I cannot imagine that causing a subset of the American population to suffer thusly, all the while funding organized crime, could possibly be a good thing. If you look closely, you can see that this situation resembles the modern marijuana situation significantly. -[[User:Simple|Simple]] 11:01 (GMT -5) 6 July 2007

:::::The U.S. Government didn't repeal Prohibition; it was the people, via a referendum (okay, there would have been an associated act involved). But by your logic, (a) why would the people have voted for prohibition in the first place, if it was so bad, given that quite a few states already had it (i.e. the "experiment" was already tried) before it went national, and (b), why did the people vote for a pro-prohibition presidential candidate ''after'' it came in, if it was so bad?
:::::The answer, as I understand it, is that powerful media groups (i.e. newspapers; there was no TV then) (perhaps they were [[liberal]]?) campaigned for an end to prohibition because the media owners wanted to ease their tax burden by creating another source of revenue for the government, by taxing alcohol. Their propaganda campaign of disinformation was so successful that to this day most people think that prohibition was a failure.
:::::I was also citing U.S. history, so we are on an equal footing there. I understand that it ''did'' work—the theory ''did'' "hold water" when applied.
:::::Yes, alcohol was still available (one of the flaws of the legislation was to ban the sale of it, not the manufacture of it!), and the ''desperate'' alcoholics could still get it. But most people—they had voted for it, remember—weren't that desperate, and most simply gave it up, so the use of alcohol dropped to a tiny fraction of what it had been. The ''relatively'' small amount of bootlegged grog of dubious "quality" was far outweighed by the vast majority no longer imbibing this poisonous depressant drug.
:::::Yes, it does have similarities with the modern situation with marijuana. Which is one reason why marijuana should stay banned.
:::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:15, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::At this point, our disagreement seems to be largely a debate on whether or not the history we have been taught is accurate. I am no historian, and cannot argue on this level. That said, I offer a different point: assuming that you are accurate in saying that substance banning is ''mostly'' effective, and is good for ''most'' people, we have still confessed that it is an imperfect and expensive solution. What I suggest is that there may well be a more effective alternative: education. Translating "given suitable enforcement" to "given suitable funding", my experiences lead me to believe that ''properly'' educating kids to the pitfalls of substance abuse (and by educating I don't mean 'Marijuana is bad, okay?') we can achieve a more satisfactory solution. -[[User:Simple|Simple]] 11:33 (GMT -5) 6 July 2007
:::::::I agree with the education angle, but educating people that it's bad, and legalising it, sends contradictory messages. Both education and banning are needed. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:56, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::::Philip - using that logic, presumably you'd like to see alcohol and tobacco banned then? As far as I can see from the evidence, the harm caused by these substances is, if anything, more than the harm caused by marijuana. And yet we deal with the harmful effects of alcohol and tobacco by educating people into knowledge of their harmful effects, and acknowledging that (with alcohol at any rate) there are positive benefits to be gained from a moderate and rational use of it.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 12:34, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::::: Yes, I'd like to see alcohol and tobacco banned. The only qualifier I'd put on that is that ''politically'', you would not get away with banning alcohol at present, and perhaps not tobacco yet, although we are probably getting close to that (in Australia at least). To put it another way, banning them might be a slow process of erosion of availability and education before the actual banning, but banning them ought to be the goal.
::::::::: I'm not convinced of many of the claims that there are benefits from using moderate amounts of alcohol, for three reasons:
:::::::::* Reported studies (in newspapers) claiming to show benefits from drinking wine fail to mention whether the benefit would still be achieved by drinking non-alcoholic wine. That is, is the benefit in the alcohol, or something else in the drink?
:::::::::* Apparently at least some studies claiming to show benefit from drinking wine were done by comparing the health of drinker with non-drinkers, and the latter groups frequently include people who used to drink heavily, but have become teetotallers because of how it was affecting their health.
:::::::::* Reported studies usually fail to mention whether the benefits outweigh the problems. Alcohol is both a dependence-forming drug and a depressant (unlike caffeine, for example which although mildly dependence-forming is a stimulant), which is a dangerous combination, and also makes the drinker thirsty! How much more diabolical can it get? More, actually, because it's also poisonous! (The [[Woman's Christian Temperance Union]] here in Victoria buys (or used to buy) pure alcohol to use in education programs, and were restricted to buying small quantities per year because of its classification as a poison. Yet it is freely available mixed into drinks!!) So are the reported benefits so great that it's worth putting up with all the problems?
:::::::::With regards to tobacco, I probably don't need to explain the problems with that, except to point out acceptance of tobacco 40 years ago was at similar levels to acceptance of alcohol today, in my opinion.
:::::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 13:38, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
Marijuana is more dangerous due to physcodelic effects [[User:Eljawa|Eljawa]] 10:24, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
You mean psychedelic? Can you explian how this makes it dangerous?

All I can say about marijuana is this... may God have mercy upon the person that I catch ever trying to sell marijuana to my kids. --[[User:Watchman|Watchman]] 22:40, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

This is more of a control issue verses if it is bad or good. The war on drugs first started as a discimination practice against the Mexicans. When you live in a FREE country you should be able to do what you want in your own home. We are not talking about getting high and going to work. Alcohol and tobacco is not done there either. Just in the privacy of your home. Smoking is already banned in California if you live in an apartment. If you pay rent I still consider this to be your home. Do you think people actually stopped? You should arrest those criminals? And if you want to ban mind altering substance, kiss cheese good bye because it acts like morphine on the brain. Lets decriminalize instead of legalizing and leave the Government out of it. They control enough already. It is all about control and nothing to do with the substance. After all it is a natural product and not a man made concotion. Other drugs will crop up in its place if it is too scarce. Why do you think Meth came around? Proper law enforcement should be substituted with education on the effects. Education not propoganda. I did read where there is one entire northern Califorian county that exclusively relies on Marijuana for its economy.
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

"Lets decriminalize instead of legalizing." I know somebody who is always telling me we should decriminalize marijuana, but she has thus far been unable to effectively articulate what the heck the difference between decriminalization and legalization. Can you help me out? --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 15:26, 5 December 2009 (EST)

If you legalize it, you can tax and regulate it. Decrimimalization is while it is still illegal, therefore can't be regulated and taxed, the crime carries no penalty.

Debate:Should marijuana be legalized?

2009-12-05T19:54:44Z

LTS:

Debate:Did Jesus ever claim to be God?

2009-12-05T14:43:15Z

LTS:

{{debate}}
jesus claimed to be the son of god...right?? according to christanity...

==According to GOD==
Matthew 3:17 "And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." That's according to the Jews of His time. The Son of God that became the sin offering for all of mankind. Need more? Read the rest of the Old and New Testament.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 15:24, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

==According to Jesus himself==
God is refered to as "I AM" in Exodus 3:14; "And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you."

In the eighth chapter of the Gospel of John, some Jews asked Jesus who he was claiming to be. In his response, he included both the claim that he is the Son of God, and took on the self-existant name, "I AM", that God declared to Moses.
"I AM" is not a clear evidence. This is language that is used by anyone. In other words, whenever anyone speaks about him/herself and says "I AM" we might consider as GOD?!! so "I AM" used in the bible and in any other religious statment does not proof that jesus was GOD.

Jhn 8:53-59 "Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself? (v.54)Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God: (v.55) Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying. (v.56) Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw [it], and was glad. (v.57) Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? (v.58) Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. (v.59) Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by."

The Jews obviously understood the dual statements of "my Father...is your God" and "Before Abraham was, I am" as a doubly strong claim to the divine nature of God, since they tried to stone him on the spot.
--[[User:DavidDeering|DavidDeering]] 13:41, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

:Maybe I missed it but I have not read any quotes from Jesus saying specifically He was God. Although there is plenty of scripture saying He was the Son and that there is one God. “There is no God but one.” “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” Also if Jesus is God, how is it that He said that only the Father knows the Day of the Lord?

:Whether or not Jesus is God comes down to a stupid debate over the definition of "is." We all agree that Jesus was not God in the sense that you can replace the one word with the other, so what's the question? --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 21:00, 17 November 2007 (EST)

::Although the ''King James'' and other versions (''New English Bible'', ''Jerusalem Bible'', ''New American Bible'' (St. Joseph Edition) translate the Greek ''e•go΄ ei•me΄'' as "I am" and render it in capitals to appear to be a title, that is not the only rendering possible. Context is incredibly important here. The Jews were asking Jesus not about his ''identity'' but about his ''age''. Jesus' answer then had to do with his age, the fact that he had a pre-human existence in heaven ... not a statement of who he is. The book, ''A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in Light of Historical Research'' states that: "The verb [''ei•mi΄''] ... does express existence as a predicate like any other verb, as in [''e•go΄ ei•me΄''] (Jo. 8:58)." (A.T. Robertson, p. 394). This same idea is conveyed by the wording in ''The Bible-An American Translation'', ''A New Translation of the Bible'' (James Moffat), ''The New Testament-A Translation in the Language of the People'', ''The Simple English Bible'', and ''The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures''.

::*Looking at the context of the entire gospel of John, Jesus consistently draws a separation between himself and God. He refers to God as "Father" and shows that he is subordinate to the Father (John 14:28) and was sent at his Father's direction (John 3:16; 17:3).

::*Looking at the context of all four gospels, Jesus again consistently shows that he is does not believe himself to be God. For example, Luke 22:42 Christ prays in the Garden for, not his will to be done, but the Father's. Mark 15:34, he cries out "My God, my God, what have you forsaken me?" Matthew 28:18, Jesus tells his disciples that authority had been ''given'' him in heaven and on earth. If Jesus knew he was God, none of these would make sense.

::*Looking at the context of the New Testament, the early Christians did not believe Jesus to be God. The most prolific writer, the Apostle Paul, consistently writes about Jesus as the ''Son'' of God ... not God himself. For example, 1 Corinthians 15:24: "Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power." (''KJV'') - in other words Christ hands over the Kingdom to God the Father, a transaction between two separate people. At Colossians 1:15, Paul refers to Christ as the first-born of all creation. This harmonizes with the concept of Christ Jesus (the Son of God) and God the Father.[[User:BibleBrown|BibleBrown]] 17:26, 16 December 2007 (EST)

:::John 10:30 "I and the Father are one." yeah...that kind of says he claimed to be God to me...However, the refrence is right, but it is just a text and we need to look at the whole context, which starts at John 10:22. The whole context shows that there is a difference between GOD and Jesus (the father and the son), and the whole context would mean that GOD and jesus are the same as far as the walk in Faith is concerned, and it does not mean that they are one and the same. So This does not present any proof that Jesus was GOD.

:::Jesus also said at Matthew 19:5, regarding Adam and Eve, that they were "one flesh" (referring to their marital union). Nobody would ever construe his words to mean that Jesus ''literally'' meant that the first couple walked around like conjoined twins. Again, context is critical. John 10:36 asks the Jews if they feel he has blasphemed because I said, I am Son of God? At John 17:21, 22 Christ prayed, "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one." (''KJV'') The Greek word being translated as "one" (''hen''), at both John 10:30 and John 17:21, 22, is neuter, literally "one (thing)," and is used to indicate oneness in cooperation.

:::French theologian John Calvin (July 10, 1509 – May 27, 1564), said in the book ''Commentary on the Gospel According to John'': “The ancients made a wrong use of this passage to prove that Christ is . . . of the same essence with the Father. For Christ does not argue about the unity of substance, but about the agreement which he has with the Father.” [[User:BibleBrown|BibleBrown]] 17:26, 16 December 2007 (EST)

::::Did jesus claim to be be God?... No he did not, because there is not a single vocal statment in the bible where Jesus says that he is God, or where he says worship me...Jesus is not God, however he is a mighty messenger from God.

the concept of the Trinity seems missing in this debate. {{unsigned|Wargammer2005}}

:The word trinity is not mentioned in the Bible, but there are a number of verses which mention Father, Son and Holy Spirit together; such as the baptism of Jesus and following his resurrection. The word Godhead is used a number of times in the KJV which means trinity, interestingly this has been taken out of new translations! I'd be interested on peoples views on this as I find it a difficult doctrine. Adam

:::My remembrance of textual criticisms is a bit fuzzy, but I thought that the use of Godhead, in KJV, was specifically added to have the translation include the Trinity. The text used for the translation was one that included the reference, and that is why it was chosen. I am several years away from any TC study, however, so cannot make this as a solid claim. [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 09:01, 24 January 2008 (EST)

:::I am confused by the trinity doctrine of three persons in one God. I tend to think this is not Biblically based. How can it be when Jesus said "I am not yet ascended to... my God, and your God" (John 20:17)? Also John says "God.. gave his only begotten Son"(3:16), implying that Jesus was sent? Would be more accurate to say that while there is unity between Father, Son and Holy Spirit, only the Father is God, Jesus the Son of God and "the express image of God" and the Spirit of God an agent of God? Adam

::::When it comes to the Bible, confusion generally arises where a teaching is either: 1) inconsistent with what the rest of the Bible says or 2) inconsistent with reality. The trinity doctrine falls apart on both.

::::For example: The Bible uses a Father/Son relationship to describe God and Jesus.

::::*Nowhere ... literally ... does the Bible categorically state ‘the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God.’

::::*We know from day-to-day life that Father/Son relationships rarely involve two distinct individuals being the same entity. One would assume that if a day-to-day relationship would be a template, you'd look at identical triplets.

::::According to "Harpers Bible Dictionary", it is generally believed that Tertullian (c. 145-220 AD) either coined the term or was the first to use it in reference to God. According to "The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge": "The doctines of the ... Trinity received their shape from Greek Fathers, who ... were much influenced, directly or indirectly, by the Platonic philosophy."

::::God dealt exclusively with the nation of Israel for thousands of years. If He was a triune deity similar to those worshipped by Israel's enemies the Egyptians and Babylonians, He probably would have mentioned somewhere along the lines - at least to Noah, Abraham or Moses one would imagine.

::::Unfortunately the doctrine is one that for some reason people refuse to be rational about. They find comfort in a "divine mystery" that they aren't supposed to understand.

::::Remember that the problem doesn't lie with the Bible it's in the lies about the Bible. Accept that it is the word of God and pray for guidance in understanding what it ''really'' teaches. [[User:BibleBrown|BibleBrown]] 22:20, 29 January 2008 (EST)

:::::I think it is unfair to imply the trinity is not based on the Bible. Jesus said in Matthew that we are to baptise in the name of the father, the son and the holy spirit. And the doctrine is mentioned in other parts of the Bible. The divinity of Jesus is shown throughout the gospels(miracles, etc.), letter to hebrews, revelation. Even if one is skeptical of the truine doctrine, I think there is a logic to it, as scripture shows Jesus to be both man (prophet) and divine (Son of God). Regards, Adam
<blockquote>

Did Jesus claim to be be God?... No he did not, because there is not a single vocal statement in the bible where Jesus says that he is God, or where he says worship me...Jesus is not God, however he is a mighty messenger from God.
</blockquote>

:The manner of hermeneutic behind this kind of statement makes only explicit statements within a "red latter" Bible authoritative, as if it was not the same Holy Spirit who inspired the gospels that inspired the narrative also, and the rest of the N.T. by which we interpret the gospels. And as if Jesus often chose not to give direct statements but said (as does the Holy Spirit elsewhere) and did things that left no other conclusion than that He was claiming essential equality with God. It is indeed tragic that the blind Pharisees (etc.) got the clue - and thus sought to destroy Him - but the modern Arian does not. Jesus claim to be the Son of God was itself a claim of Deity, as is illustrated in John 5:18, in which "the Jews sought the more to kill him, because He not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God." This phrase "alla kai patera idion elege ton theon" conveyed a unique quality of sonship, as Robertsons word pictures explains: “His own” (idion) in a sense not true of others. That is precisely what Jesus meant by “My Father.” See Rom_8:32 for ho idios huios, “his own Son”

:This is why the Jews sought to apprehend Jesus after He explained Himself John 10, where, because of what He said and did, they charged Jesus with "blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God" (v. 33). Jesus points out to them that if the Scriptures - which He affirms are the immutable authority - calls mere men "gods" (Ps. 82:6), then how more more fitting it is that He whom the Father sanctified and sent calls Himself the Son of God, as He is God by nature, as His works testify the Father was in Him, and He in Him (vs. 34-38). They did not like that, because like many Arians, they could not perceive God even if He was standing in front of them. "Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand" (v. 38). "Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour." (Isa 45:15).

:Similarly, this is the answer to the question in John 12:34b, "who is this Son of man? Jesus responds by telling them the light will soon be gone, so "walk while ye have the light, lest darkness come upon you: for he that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth. While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light. These things spake Jesus, and departed, and did hide himself from them" (vs. 35, 36).

:The Holy Spirit goes on to apply the prophecy given to Isaiah (6:9, 10) to the blindness of the current Jews, and that "These things said Esaias, when he saw His glory, and spake of Him" (v. 41), the subject being Christ. And who did Isaiah see when he was given that prophecy? None other than the LORD Himself (6:1). It was thus that "Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on Me, believeth not on Me, but on Him that sent Me. And he that seeth Me seeth Him that sent Me" (vs. 44-45).

:Of course we also have the explicit statement that "the Word was God" (John 1:1), which cannot be rendered "a god" unless you want to render other texts in that chapter that way (like v. 12: "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God"). And if Jesus is only a might God, then that would make Him compete with the mighty God of the O.T. (Psalm 50:1), and would make Jesus a false God, as in regards to Deity according to nature the LORD declares, "Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any" (Isa 44:8). "Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me" (Isa 46:9). "Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else." (Isa 45:22). Unless or course, Jesus is what the Holy Spirit declares Him to be in many ways, "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." (Rev 1:8).

:Heb. 1 also attributes to Christ scriptures that are addressed to the person called God, as do other texts (Joel 2:32 x Roman 10:13; Isaiah 40:3 x Mark 3:3; etc.), and overall we see the Deity of Christ incontrovertibly manifested as unique titles, attributes and glory that only belong to the Being called God are ascribed to Christ. See more on this here: http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/DEITYofCHRIST.html

:Not that Jesus is the Father, or equal in position, but what i see as the most primary essential quality of God is that of possessing His unique uncreated nature, which no one else has, but which the Father and the Son (and the Holy Spirit) possess, as the Scripture saith, "from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God," "whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting (Psalm 90:2; Micah 5:2).

:May all, like Thomas, confess to Jesus, "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28), to the glory of god the Father. Amen --[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 20:13, 19 February 2008 (EST)

::John 1:1 - In the begging was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:2 - He was in the beginning with God.

::John 1:14 - And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory of the only begotten of the father.

::The first chapter of John also talks about the John the Baptist bearing witness of the Word. Who did John the Baptist bear witness of? Jesus. Who is the Word? Jesus. And it says that ‘the Word WAS God’. Jesus is God. --
:::[[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 3 March 2008

:::The following was posted by Christian Zionist @ 10:45PM EDT - 04/17/08

:::Acts 20:28 says:

::Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of '''God which He purchased with His own blood''' (NASB) - God purchased with His own blood - clearly proves that Jesus is God!

:::1 John 5:20 says:

:::And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life. (NASB) - True God and eternal life - again proves that Jesus is God!

:::Romans 9:5

:::whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.

:::(NASB) - Jesus is God blessed forever!

::''Even demons worshipped Jesus and one day all knees will bow down to Jesus. So if someone does not worship Jesus then he/she is worse than demons?''

:::Revelation 4:9 to 11 - Jesus is being worshipped in Heaven! So...

:::4:9 And when the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to Him who sits on the throne, to Him who lives forever and ever,

::4:10 the twenty-four elders will fall down before Him who sits on the throne, and will worship Him who lives forever and ever, and will cast their crowns before the throne, saying,

::4:11 "Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and because of Your will they existed, and were created."

:::Maintaining context is crucial. In the full context, which includes Chapter 5, we can see that the person receiving the worship in heaven is '''''not''''' Jesus. How? Consider the following:
::* Revelation 5:1-3 the One on the throne holds a book, or scroll, to be opened; an angel asks who is worthy to open the book, or scroll, and no one is found worthy to open it.

:::*Revelation 5:4-6 the apostle John begins to weep because there is no one worthy and is told to stop because there the Lion of the tribe of Judah is worthy, that Lion being seen by John as a Lamb that had been slain. That Lion is also described as the "root of David".

:::John would have recognized both terms as being part of the Messianic prophecies that had been provided by Jacob (Genesis 49:9, 10), Ezekiel (Ezekiel 21:25-26), and Isaiah (Isaiah 11:1,10). John would have concluded, therefore, that the Lamb in front of him was Christ Jesus.

:::In Revelation 4:11 the worthiness of God is put beyond all doubt by right of being the Creator. According to Revelation 5:9, 10, Christ's worthiness to open the book, or scroll, is based on his death (which brings salvation) and the fact that he established a kingdom with those represented by the 24 elders.

:::*Jesus worthiness is unique in that he was proved that it is possible to be human ''and'' faithful to God. Something that was put into question by the rebellion of Adam and Eve, as well as Satan's charge in the case of the patriarch Job. (Job 1:7-12; 2:4-5) God being loyal to himself would prove nothing with regard to Satan's challenge. Jesus being loyal to God despite all that was done to him (including beatings and an excruciatingly painful execution on false charges) is unique in the universe. No man or angel can claim anything close.

:::Obviously then there are two separate individuals being highlighted in Revelation 4 and Revelation 5. The One on the throne being God (not Jesus) and the Lamb of God, Jesus. That John appreciated this can be seen by the words that he would write in his inspired Gospel ''after'' writing Revelation, "for my Father is greater than I". (John 14:28)

:::Respectfully, [[User:BibleBrown|BibleBrown]] 19:34, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::::Yes, the two are Jesus and the Father, but that doesn't mean that Jesus isn't God. That simply implies the doctrine of the Trinity. (One God who exists as three persons.) Besides, that doesn't adress all of the other scripture presented in support of the divinity of Jesus. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:12, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

--[[User:Erbninc|Erbninc]] 15:17, 19 November 2009 (EST)
You are using a bad translation for Exodus 3:14 bible translators translate Ehyeh at Exodus 3:12 as "become" and then turn around and translate it as "I am" at Exodus 3:14? http://biblos.com/exodus/3-12.htm http://biblos.com/exodus/3-14.htm ( I like this website, it's not a Jehovah's Witness site but let's me look at the Hebrew and Greek for free)....Google the term Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh which was used at Exodus 3:14, what do you come up with? Why do people say "I am that I am" is not the correct translation? How does this tie in with the translation of Ehyeh at Exodus 3:12? Now how does this relate to John 8:58 which people say Jesus used "I am" because he was God?
Jesus never claimed to be God at all, he even stated the father was greater than him at John 14:28 and 1 Cor 11:3 confirms that God is over everyone, including Jesus. Notice Revelation 1 Jesus receives the Revelation from God and at Revelation 3:12 he states "My God" several times.

Further more Jesus has brothers and co-heirs and they stem from "one" (Romans 8:17, Heb 2:11-12) They will co-rule with him Revelation 20:6....Jesus can not be God. Any thing that states he is the work of the Anti-christ who wants people to worship anyone but the only True God (John 17:3), Jesus came to mediate mankind's relationship back to God (1 Tim 2:5) not be worshiped.Scriptures like Matthew 14:33 are mistranslated just like Revelation 3:9 where it uses worship in connection with Jesus' followers in the KJV and otehr bibles. You have the same greek word for homage, bow down, obeisance as you do worship (Proskuneo), the context dictates what should be used. Jesus himself said only God should be worshiped at Matthew 4:10. Either the bible contradicts itself or there's a translation error, you guess which it is.

I think a reoccuring theme also is that no one has seen God the Father or in the O.T. God, for they shall surely die. If you shall surely die, who came down and resided in the Temple, sat down and ate and drank with Abraham, who was walking in the Garden of Eden that caused Adam and Eve hide? Let's for a moment call this person the Son of God. Therefore no one has seen the Father yet except for the Son. Jesus eludes to this with statements such as when Moses tapped the rock in the desert for water that he was that rock. He further states that when the Devil was cast out of Heaven that he was there and saw it. Not that he cast him out. In other verses you will find phrases like Nothing that was made was made but through him (referring to Jesus). So the OT says God created the world but more acurrately may state the Son created the world with all the powers of the Father. The OT. did not really deal with Jesus yet but only called him God. So the God of the OT. is the Son and one has seen the Father yet except for the Son.

Debate:Should gay marriage be allowed?

2009-12-05T14:35:37Z

LTS:

{{Debate-religion}}
{{Debate-politics}}
{{Debate}}
This is basically a forum. You can chat with your friends, and reminise with them about that special person that you will never meet because you were too busy here answering if gay marrage should be legaized. So, answer. The sooner you do, the faster you might meet that special someone. 
 
==Yes==
Yes, it should be allowed. For all too long, there has been discrimination in this country. For instance, racism was considered normal for a long time. However, although people might think that there is no discrimination going on in America today, there is prejudice against the homosexual population. The discrimination is that they are denied their free right to, well, equal rights. The right of being married. One of this country's fundimental principals was to have everyone come here and be equals. Although that promise wasn't nessicerally held up (slaves are still people, yet they were still imprisoned for many years after this country was founded), do we need to fight another war in order to try to get homosexual marrage allowed (a very long strech, but you get the point). Discrimination was tolerated at one point in America. Can't we leave that point behind us? --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

You say it should be legalized because of equality. But, it’s because of equality that it shouldn’t be legalized. Homosexuals already have the exact same rights as heterosexuals. A homosexual man can marry any woman he chooses (assuming that she is of legal age and is consenting) just as any heterosexual man can. They already have the exact same rights. Allowing homosexuals to marry one another would be giving them special rights based on a behavioral preference. They choose to engage in homosexuality. Note that when I say they’re “choosing”, I’m not talking about whether they’re born that way or not. I mean they’re choosing their lifestyle. Born that way or not, they still choose to engage in that particular sexual behavior, just like heterosexuals choose to engage in their sexual acts. So, it is a behavioral choice, and legalizing it would be giving them a special right based on a behavior. That is inequality. [[User:BillyJ|BillyJ]] 01:44, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

:I don't quite see why they would marry someone that is heterosexual if they are homosexual. I mean, look at it this way. Let's say that it was illigal for everyone that was not Roman Catholic to be married. Should it not be legalized for other religons to do that. Because, I mean, religion is simply the truth that you prefer to believe (for catholics, it is that Jesus was the messiah, for example). Should it not be legal for other religions to marry, even though they prefer not to be Roman Catholics? --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

The point is that they can marry. You're giving examples of people who can't marry at all, but that doesn't fit the current scenario of things. Homosexuals might not want to marry the opposite gender, but they have the right to, just like a heterosexual person can. The point is that they all have the same rights, and to allow them to wed the same sex would be to give out special rights. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:05, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::Yes, homosexuals can marry those of opposite gender, but, if gay marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will be able to marry people of the same gender, so everyone will still have equal rights. If gay marriage doesn't hurt anybody, why shouldn't it be allowed? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 23:11, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

Because you're giving out rights based on a behavioral preference. It's saying, "I prefer to do this, so it should be legal because I want to do it." Besides, who says that gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone? I would dispute that. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:26, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

If you want to do something why shouldn't it be legal? The only answer I can think of is if it hurts someone. If gay marriage indeed hurts someone, who does it hurt? (And I'm not giving out rights based on behavioral preference; everyone would get the right to a homosexual marriage just like everyone gets the right to a heterosexual marriage.) [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 23:32, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

It hurts society. We already have moral standards that are in place that have been there a long time. The standard for marriage is one man and one woman who are of legal age. If we redefine the standard, then we move the line back a little. If you set the precedence that it's okay to move that line in regards to morality as we see fit, then where does it end? Polygamy? Bestiality? Pedophilia? And it is a special right, because it is giving out a right because a particular group of people hold to that behavior. It's like drug users who want drugs to be legalized because they like to use them. That's giving in to a person's behavior. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:40, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::Actually, the Biblical standard for marriage is "One man, and as many wives and concubines as he can afford". You need to start getting all huffy about how abandoning this Godly standard has hurt our country. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 23:30, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Is society really hurt just because it stops reflecting your morals? There have been other opinions that had "been there a long time" before they got changed: see [[slavery]]. The government has to protect its citizens and residents and so it cannot allow bestiality or pedophilia because neither a (non-human) animal nor a child is mentally capable of consenting to sex. Polygamy is a little trickier. While I don't object to it in principle, it generally seems to lead to abusive husbands and male-dominated societies and so the government could certainly outlaw it.
And homosexuality is not like drug use because drug users actually ''do'' harm society; they make roads more dangerous and tend to commit more crimes than non-drug users. [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 23:56, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::Don't forget that [[Miscegenation]] used to be illegal, too. :-P --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 23:30, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

How are you asking that first question? Are you asking my morals in particular, or in a generalistic sense? If it's my morals that society no longer reflects, well, I think it's morally wrong to steal, rape, murder, etc. So, yea, socitey would be hurt real bad. What I'm saying about changing values is that it makes things easier to pass that were at one time considered terrible. Let me give you an example:

An 18 year old can marry anyone they want without their parents permission. But, a 17 year old can't. But is a 17 year old that much different from an 18 year old? Most would say they're not. So shouldn't a 17 year old be able to marry as he chooses as well? Really, that makes pretty good sense. But, a 16 year old isn't that different from a 17 year old, so why can't he marry as he wants? And on and on it goes until you get to, "Well, a 5 year old isn't that much different than a 6 year old, so hey should be able to get married." My point is that it's just a real slippery sloap. Simillarly, how do you tell the very next thing after homosexuality that they can't when you just made the exception for homosexuals? [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:07, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

To answer your first question, yes, I am asking about your morals. I really don't care what society thinks. If society thinks that it is okay to steal, rape, and murder, I don't care. I do care about what the government thinks, because, even if society condones murder, people will not be allowed to murder each other as long as the government opposes it. The government does not need any moral standard to outlaw theft, rape, and murder, as I said before: the government has to protect its citizens. As a result, the government should, and would, outlaw theft, rape, and murder without any morals.

As to your slippery slope example, in 1971 the minimun voting age was lowered from 21 to 18. 37 years later, there are still no supporters of suffrage for 15 year olds. I can't see why allowing gay marriage would be so different. Finally, I haven't made an exception for homosexuals until you prove that they harm society. If you do that I will oppose gay marriage. [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 00:31, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Wait. Government doesn't need any moral standards? I disagree. There have been lots of governments that kill their own citizens when it's convenient for them to do so. Everybody needs an objective standard, otherwise your just making you morals up out of your own preferences. The voting age was changed from 21 to 18 because 18 years olds were dieing in Vietnam but couldn't elect the officials who sent them there. That made no sense. The reason it isn't continuing to be lowered is because people realize that there must be some standard. If you lower to 17, then why not 16. If 16, why not 15? But we realize that you have to keep some standard otherwise where does it end? The same goes for marriage. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:41, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

I would like to add something. If the government does not have any moral stadards, then the government will end up deciding to destroy it's people and if anyone speeks out against it, then they will stop at nothing to make sure you will not say anything. However, I would like to say this. In a way, heterosexual marrages are based upon one's behavioral preferance. For instance, let's say that a man likes women. Isn't that a preference? Why, then should a homosexual not be able to marry because of their behavioral preference? --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

::"Because gays are icky" seems to be the basis for all the arguments I've heard. If these folks REALLY think that gay marriage will Destroy the Institution of Marriage (possibly by giving it AIDS), you have to wonder why they don't try to outlaw [[Divorce]], FIRST. There are a LOT more divorced heterosexuals than there are gays, period.
::Especially [http://www.acupofambition.com/index.php?s=marriages celebrity marriages]! They're doing more damage to the Sacredness of Marriage than all they homosexuals in the world could. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 23:30, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Ultimahero, my morals say that it is wrong to deny homosexuals the right to marry. Since these are the same morals that are against pedophilia, wouldn't your slippery slope argument say that we must allow gay marriage or risk pedophilia becoming legal? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 00:35, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

Okay, let me try to hit all those points one at a time. First off, yes, people being involved in heterosexual relationships is a behavioral preference, too. But, it's a little different in the sense that heterosexuality is generally considered to be the natural way. It's what we predominantly see in nature, the male and female bodies are obviously meant to couple, the vast majority of people are heterosexual, etc. So, my argument is that there's the so called "normal" way that has been perfectly accepted and legal since this nation's foundation, and everyone is given the same rights to perform that way. Then there is another lifestyle that is only preformed by a small minority, and they are engaging in an activity which they choose to do. (Not the choice to be gay, but the choice to "act" gay, or to engage in that behavior.) So for it to be asked that this alternative choice be given just as much legitimacy as the first option is somewhat of a push. It's almost as if homosexuals are saying "we choose to act differently then you, but we want you to treat us like we're not." But wait. Your making that choice, not me. I don't force it on you. You do it by your own free will. You can't turn around and then act like your not making that choice. That's having your cake and eating it too.

I can't speak for all, but I'm not against homosexuality because it's "icky". I'm against it because I believe it's morally wrong. Yes, divorce is bad, too. People treat marriage far too flippantly, with the attitude of, "if it doesn't work, we'll get a divorce". That's wrong, too. But the problem is that there are some scenarios where divorce could be legitimate. In cases of unfaithful partners, abusive spouses, etc. So there are cases that make it impossible to outlaw divorce.

I think that I get your point about turning my slippery slope argument against me. (Correct me if I'm misinterpreting you.) No, the slippery slope doesn't occur because of my personal values or yours. It occurs because of what is already in place in society. What there is one man, one woman of legal age and they consent. That's the standard. So if you lower that standard to suit homosexual marriage, then where does it end? The slippery slope has to do with what's already in the society, not my personal beliefs. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 02:03, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

OK, so we're talking about society's morals then. But wouldn't the slippery slope mean that nothing that society disapproves of could ever be allowed? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 00:56, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

The argument is that anything will be allowed if you get on the slippery slope, because once you start down it there's no real way to stop. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 01:29, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Is that a yes then? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 19:08, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm sorry; I think I'm missing the question. Yes to what? [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 19:15, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Wouldn't the slippery slope argument mean that nothing that society disapproves of could ever be allowed? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 00:00, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Okay. The slippery slope is saying that if you get onto that road then you can't stop any possible outcome that fits within that context. Things still could get passed and changed, because society could get on the slope. It's just a caution for society to be careful of which way it heads because it might not like where it ends up. But it still could change and allow things. That's why the argument is there. There's no point in arguing it if it can't change anyway. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 01:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Incestuous relationships: "but they love each other shouldn't they be allowed to marry whoever they want without any circumstances that is discrimination they love each other but you won't let them marry it may not be the ideal but how could you prevent two people who really love each other from marrying, marriage is based on love, is it not, honestly why do you care what they do in their bedroom it is there business" It is the same argument as that of homosexual relationship, both are stupid views incestuous marriages and homosexual marriages -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 09:37, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Liberals don't think they follow their emotions -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 09:37, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Immorality anywhere is a threat to morality anywhere, if you actually cared about homosexuals instead of the radical ones, you'd feel sorry for them according to Center for Disease Control, 71% of the people with HIV are homosexual, homosexuals are overrepresented for all STDs extensively-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 09:45, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps gay marriage would encourage monogomy and thus reduce STD's among homosexuals. Also I think the problem with incest is not a moral one but rather a genetic one. The children of close relatives are far more likely than others to get rare genetic diseases. [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 00:44, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

But even monogamy in a homosexual relationship can lead to STD's. As for the incest thing, you're right. Even from a Biblical standpoint that's the view. Early on in creation it was okay for brothers and sisters to marry. How else could the Earth be populated by two people? Cain had to marry his sister. But back then the genetic line was pure enough to allow for that sort of thing, where now it is not. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:53, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

STD's can be transmitted in even in a monogomous relationship (homosexual or heterosexual), but it is far less likely than if someone has many different partners. The odds of 1 in 2 people having an STD are far less than the odds of, say, 1 in 10 [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 23:29, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

Certainly. But the form of sexual intercourse with the highest STD rate would be anal. I know both heterosexual and homosexual couples are capable of that, but homosexuals are more likely to engage in it because, well, count the holes... [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:20, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

Question, why do you even care about gays having STDs? That is our problem to deal with, not yours. We can't have children (not biologically anyway) so we cannot pass it on, we are gay and therefore will not engage in sex with heterosexual persons, and thus won't spread it within the heterosexual community (which is all you seem to care about). Thus, why does it even matter to you? What business is it to you if a person (gay or straight) gets a STD. That is their problem to deal with, not yours. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 6:30, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

Well first of all someone else raised the point and I was simply addressing it. Secondly, it can be passed on, just not through hereditary means. Say someone with HIV gave blood and it got passed on, that would be a problem. (I know that's unlikely because they test for that stuff before they take blood, but I'm just saying it can still be passed by means other than sex.) Thirdly, I care because I don't want gay people to get diseases. It may not have a direct impact on me, but I still don't want them to be sick. I don't like homosexuality and I think it's wrong, but I don't want them to get sick and die. I care about a lot of things that don't necessarily impact me. Children starving to death in Africa doesn't affect me personally, but I still care about them and don't want it to happen. People I don't know who go to Hell might not affect me personally, but I still don't want them to have to suffer like that. I think it‘s just a sign of humanity to care about other people.[[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:30, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

It is fine to "care" about other people, but not when it negatively impacts their lives. Starving children in Africa will not deny your help or aid because they want it, and it makes their lives better. People's interference with private social lives, however, is not wanted. And just a FYI, under current law, any individual with a same-sex sexual experience since 1977 cannot give blood. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 16:43, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

Who said anything about interfering with your life? That's putting words in my mouth. You have every right to live that way if you want to. I care about homosexuals and don't want them to get diseases, but I fully recognize that individuals have the right to make their own choices. Where the discrepancy comes up is when we're dealing with legalizing it and it becoming a societal factor. That's when it interferes with my life and negatively impacts me. That's when I have to say "no." [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 22:36, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

My question is, why is it alright to negatively impact my life, but not yours. What makes the negative impact of my life so inferior to yours that it is okay for mine to continue, but it is an abomination that your life is somehow impacted. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 12:51, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

It's not. I'm not trying to negatively impact your life. That's why I don't push for homosexuality to be made illegal. (As some people have suggested be done.) Your have the right to live that way if you want. But, it's not fair to negatively impact my life, either. That's why I'm against it being legalized and pushed onto society. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 13:02, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

You may not specifically be trying to negatively impact my life (as neither am I) but you are in your attempts to prevent such legislature legalizing gay marriage. So my question still stands, why is the negative impact on your life worse than the negative impact on mine? Considering just what legally will change, it seems that the negative impact on my life is greater than yours. You will loose no rights whatsoever, you will not have to recognize gay marriages in a religious sense. The gay community, however, is suffering from inability to receive benefits of legally married couples such as child custody protection, inheritance priority, and visitation rights. Unless if you are some form of insurance representative, or a member of any other such industry that would change due to gay marriage, your life is not effected directly at all. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 13:27, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Define negative impact. Because a child molester could say, "Hey, you're not allowing me to legally molests kids! I consider that a negative impact on me!" (I'm certainly not trying to say homosexuals are the same as child molesters, just making an analogy.) The point is that society has determined that there are certain things that have a negative impact on society so those things aren't acceptable. The whole point of this debate is why you should now be able to do something that was previously unacceptable. You might not like the status, but you have to prove why homosexuality should be accepted as an acceptable alternative lifestyle. And it does affect me, as I've explained numerous times. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 13:43, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

:I think this conversation keeps going off onto tangents about slippery slopes, child molestation and allowing 6-year-olds to marry, so let me ask this succinctly and hopefully I'll get a succinct answer in return.
:I'm in favor of allowing same-sex marriage because when you strip away all the rhetoric and politics, it's simply about letting two people who love each other and are dedicated to a relationship together solemnize their commitment, and enjoy the same legal rights as any other couple the state considers "legally married". The gender of the individuals in this commitment should matter as much to the government as their race (not at all), because it has no bearing on their ability to be a functional couple or good citizens. Even the mostly conservative/republican judges in California understood that when you define something like "domestic partnership" to be separate but equal to "marriage", it enables ''society' to discriminate anyway regardless of the law, so it's not equal in the end.
:One hundred years ago, interracial marriage was illegal in many places because it violated the traditions and norms of society. This is no longer the case because it's clear that interracial marriage itself causes no actual harm to society, so there is no legitimate basis in law to deny the legal benefits of marriage to mixed-race couples. Arguing that marriage does not apply to same-sex couples because they cannot bear children on their own is invalid as well - the government does not require fertility before marrying men and women.
:My simple question to the opponents of same-sex marriage is this, then: ''If you remove "religion" and "tradition" as reasons for a government to establish law granting equal rights, what is the objective, quantifiable harm that is done to society by allowing two people to be legally married, with as little regard for gender as there is for race?''"--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:51, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

I've said it before, I'll say it again: If two people should be allowed to marry because they "love each other", then by that definition two kids should be able to marry as long as they "love each other". That's not a tangent, it's using the same logic to bring up a valid point. Don't even look at it from a religious standpoint. Would kids getting married be a good thing? No. So, if you say two people love each other and that's all that matters, then anyone should be able to marry as long as they love each other. That logic is simply flawed.

No, race and sexual orientation is different. Race is something you have no control over, where as sexual orientation you do. (I'm not saying you can choose your sexuality, but you can choose to act on it. No one forces two homosexuals to engage in homosexual behavior, so it is a choice. On the other hand, you can't "act black", etc. So there's an obvious difference.)

Alright, completely outside of religion or tradition. Would two homosexuals be as good at raising kids as two heterosexuals? No. Ideally, you need a mom and dad.

Besides, legalizing homosexuality is forcing it upon the rest of us. Want to talk about California? Okay. When the people vote and 61% say they don't want homosexuals to marry, and then despite this, four people on court bench say "regardless of what the people want, we're going to ignore them and do what we want." Four people can overrule 61% of the largest state in the nation. That's forcing it on others. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:43, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Four people can overrule the legislation because that is their job. Our government was set up in the way it is as system of checks and balances. The founding fathers recognized what is known as the "tyranny of the majority" and established federal and state supreme courts on that basis, as a check of the people. The people can, and will, vote for a constitutional amendment (California's in November) which the SCOC cannot touch. "The rights of the minority should never be restricted by the majority." As per the child argument, you again are warping the argument presented by DinsDaleP and myself. The key point is that homosexuals are legal adults. Now you may claim that one day the marriage age will be dropped, which, though I don't foresee it, is possible. But the key there is that it will be dropped for both gay and straight couples. We are not asking for rights that only apply to us, but an extension of all citizens rights. Currently all citizens (above the age of 18) can marry the opposite sex. If gay marriage is legislated, all citizens (above the age of 18) will be able to marry both sexes. It is not special rights, you will get them too. To the argument "but I am not gay, I do not want those rights" well I am not straight, I don't want the right to marry the opposite sex. The actual legal argument against gay marriage is pretty tenuous. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 16:23 21 May 2008 (EDT)

::Ultimahero, AndrasK made the same point about age that I would have - it's misdirection to add in age as a factor when we're talking about the rights of legal adults. That's why kids don't vote, drink or drive cars. It's true that you don't choose race, but even if you accept that sexual orientation is a choice and not a preference some are born with, so what? We choose our religions, and as adults, any male-female couple of any religion (or atheists for that matter) can get married without the state weighing in.

::Ideally, you need parents who love and support you, who help you grow to be a happy, productive and well-adjusted adult. Many single parents raise their kids great, and many male-female couples raise their kids terribly. Your assumption that kids would be raised best by a pair of male-female parents is based on opinion, not fact. There's a lot more to being a good parent than gender or gender-orientation, and the government does not make parenting skills a criteria for getting married (although it'd be a good thing if it did).

::Finally, I don't see how allowing same-sex marriage forces anything on you. You can marry whoever you want, and you don't have to associate with anyone you don't want to either. We all hear people using their first amendment rights to express ideas that may offend us, but we're not harmed by the words themselves. In the same way, you need to accept that responsible, law-abiding adults should have a right to marry who they want because their marriage may offend you, but it isn't hurting you. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:41, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

To AndrasK:

Trust me, I know all about how the government is set up. The judiciary is all about interpreting the law. If something violates the Constitution, then the court can rightfully say a law is unconstitutional. But, if something is not addressed, then it is left up to the people of the states to decide what should happen. (As per the 10th Amendment.) So I ask you: is marriage ever defined in the Constitution? The answer is no, it’s not. So, since that isn’t brought up, then it’s left up to the people of the states to determine who should marry. And in California 61% of the people said they want for marriage to remain between one man and one woman. 61%. That is a solid majority. So when the courts overrule that, that isn’t overruling an unjust law. That’s liberal activism; judicial tyranny. Tyranny is when a view held by a few is forced on the whole. That’s exactly what’s happening here. We are being forced to accept something that is absolutely wrong and that we don’t want. That is unconstitutional.

No, I’m not warping the child argument. You’re missing my point, or perhaps I’m not being clear enough. I’m not saying that the age limit is going to be dropped. What I’m saying is that if someone says that “love is all that matters”, then by that definition anyone who loves someone else should be able to marry. (I know you personally acknowledge that there are other factors involved, as we have already had this discussion.) I use the child argument as an example, but there’s a lot dog things I could use. I could say that as long as I love my dog and it loves me, we should be able to marry. I could say as long as me and my fifty girlfriends love one another, we should be able to marry. Heck, I could say that as long as my table and I love each other we should be able to marry. I know those are extreme examples, but I’m trying to illustrate why “love” isn’t a sufficient requirement. I’m simply asking you for a better definition.

Yes, we could all get the same rights if homosexuality is legalized. But, by that argument I suppose we could say that is car theft is legalized, then it won’t benefit just the thieves because we all have that right now. Obviously, that erroneous. Just because we can make something legal doesn’t mean we should. Legal doesn’t mean it’s beneficial or good. I’d argue homosexuality would hurt society (a claim which I know you will inherently disagree with) and that’s why it shouldn’t be legalized.

To DinsdaleP:

Again, I was trying to demonstrate the fallacy of using “love” as requirement. It simply doesn’t work because there are to many problems with that. You need better requirements to determine who should marry other than “love”.

Comparing people’s religions when they are getting married to when there sexual orientation is like comparing apples to oranges. They’re different categories. It doesn’t matter what your religious beliefs are when you get married. Two Atheists heterosexuals who wed is fine. One’s religion is irrelevant. But, the gender and sexual orientation of a person isn’t. I would argue that a mom-dad couple is the ideal partnership. Boys need a fatherly influence to see how a man should act, and a girl needs a motherly influence to see how a woman should act. And, kids need to see how men and women interact in a healthy relationship. So if they be Atheists, Christians, etc., heterosexual couples still provide that example, whereas homosexuals don’t. (Besides, we can debate whether or not homosexuality is Constitutionally protected, but there is no debate that religion is.)

Heterosexuality can be terrible parents, certainly. And I’m not saying it’s impossible for homosexuals to be good parents. I am saying that male-female parents are the ideal thing. (For the reasons I mentioned in the above paragraph, as well as others.) Doe it always work that way? No. But just because something doesn’t always work doesn’t mean you abandon it. For example, we have laws against rape, murder etc. Those laws don’t always bring successful results, but that doesn’t mean that we should get rid of the laws. (Again, it’s an extreme example, but it serves a point.)

It does force it on me. First, it’s an attempt to force those moral on me. Secondly, if the laws says that homosexuals can be married, then that means that anyone who refuses to recognize that is guilty of discrimination and is breaking the law. And who might object? Churches. If a church refuses to perform a marital service for two homosexuals, then that legally qualifies as sexual orientation discrimination. Churches can be sued, fined, etc. So that is forcing it on me. When these things get taken into the schools, with classes on “the homosexual struggle” being taught alongside the black and women’s movements, then that is forcing it on me and my family. So it is forcing it on me. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:23, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Love is not the only requirement for a marriage. Love ''and'' consent are. The only argument you've given, or at least that I've seen, for homosexuality harming society is that it goes against society's morals. I still do not see, however, how that actually harms society. As for forcing churches to marry homosexuals, I am unaware of any law that forces churches to marry anyone who asks to be married. If you know of one, please, show me. Finially no morals are forced on you. You are more than welcome to dislike homosexuality and consider it immoral. No one is trying to take that right from you. All homosexuals want is their right to marry. [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 23:37, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Okay. Love and consent. A child can love someone and give consent. That brings us right back to where we were.

I’ve offered many arguments. One is that it does lower the morals of society and make things easier to get through in the future. I also pointed out that homosexuals aren’t the best parenting couples. I’ve said that it’s giving special rights out for a personal behavioral preference. I’ve said that churches will be in serious legal trouble if homosexuality is legalized. Whether you agree or not, I’ve offered a lot.

There doesn’t nee to be any additional law specifically saying churches must administer marriages. The law would be that homosexuals can be married the same as heterosexuals. So, if a church refuses to marry two homosexuals, then the homosexual couple could sue over discriminatory purposes. They could argue that since legally they have the same rights, then their legal right is being denied. Just like a discrimination suit could come in a work place over not hiring a homosexual, a lawsuit could come just the same against a church for “discriminating against homosexuals legal rights.” Churches can’t disobey the law, and could be forced to obey with fines, jail time, etc.

It does force morals on me. The church thing, as I already mentioned. Also, a churches could be forced to hire openly homosexual personnel. If they don’t, then that would be called discrimination. It’s in the schools being presented as an “acceptable alternative lifestyle”. You don’t want to force it on me? Fine. Get it out of schools and away from children and then I’ll believe you. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:54, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Again, a child cannot LEGALLY consent to ANYTHING. Keyword is LEGAL. Unless if Congress LEGALLY lowers the legal adult age, the child argument is null. The church argument, a marriage in a church is in no form a legal contract. What legally marries a couple is the marriage license that they must apply for and obtain from the government. That is civil marriage, religious marriage has no standing in a legal sense without that document. A person can have the entire ceremony and be married in the eyes of the church but not the law. As the Church does not provide the legal aspect of the marriage, just the religious one, there would be no grounds for a discrimination lawsuit against a church. If you don't want your children in public schools, take them out. I personally think it is a poor choice, but it is your right as a parent to do such. I laugh at how this site thinks that public schools are so gay-friendly and "promoting homosexuality." Have any of you ever even stepped foot in a school? Have any of you ever experienced what it is like to be gay in public schools? It is laughable honestly. Not only that, it is arrogant and superior. You claim we try and force our morals on you, but then you try and do the same exact thing with yours. We are at least willing to look at things from a purely legal standpoint, as is necessary to remove religion from the legislature. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 00:13 22 May 2008 (EDT)

If the keyword is legal, then let’s end the debate because homosexual marriage is not legal. Debate over, I guess… No, the point isn’t null, because we’re talking in a future hypothetical sense about all of this. But if the child thing really bugs you, then I can switch to a polygamist standpoint or bestiality, etc. Any of things would be legitimate if love is all that matters. Again, I know you personally don’t hold to that view. But others have presented that and that’s what I’m arguing against. The church marriage service may not be relevant in the legalistic sense, but it still could be argued as discrimination. If a church refuses to recognize homosexuals, they could respond that it is a violation of there legal rights and based on “discriminatory” purpose. So are you saying that homosexuality should be pushed in public schools? I think that’s a poor choice. I wouldn’t argue that we should promote anything anti-homosexual in the schools. That’s simply not something you force on kids. (What you teach your own kids in your home, that’s your business and your free to choose. But in the school that’s different.) And who said that I had kids? You’re making an assumption. I actually just graduated from a public high school last year, so I’ve definitely stepped foot in a school. And in junior year US History, we were taught civil rights. And at the end of the segment was a homosexual unit. (I’ll point out for clarification that we didn’t finish it due to time constraints, but it was there nonetheless.) No, I don’t force my morals on you. I don’t support outlawing homosexuality or throwing homosexuals in jail. What you do in your own house is your business. But it’s when you want to go beyond that and bring it out in the open, where it automatically becomes my business, that it’s forced on me. When it’s in the schools is when it’s forced on me. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:27, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Just because something is not legal currently does not make it a null argument....that is the entire point of debating; we are debating if it SHOULD be legal. As to the polygamist standpoint, I personally would not oppose such legislation. Polygamy, however, presents MUCH larger legal problems than gay marriage, in that the legal infrastructure is set up to handle a two-member couple (Spouse 1 and spouse 2). Inheritance rights, visiting rights, custody rights, tax exemptions etc are designed in a two-person marriage. So while I do not oppose polygamy (I personally am not a polygamist) on the basis that the government should have no right to restrict activities that do not directly effect others. Bestiality, like child marriage, is a null argument in that animals cannot legally consent. When we say consent, we do not mean the physical ability (which animals still lack) but the legal authority to do so. As to the discrimination against the Church, you keep saying gays will say its "discrimination" but discrimination on what grounds. The topic of this debate is gay marriage, not sexual orientation as a hate crime basis or any other anti-discrimination measure (which is another topic entirely). I have already established that legalizing gay marriage will offer no legal basis for discrimination lawsuits on the fact that churchs have no legal standing in marriage already. Gays could indeed sue the government for discriminatory practices, but not churchs because churchs are under no legal obligation to perform any wedding (straight or gay). I did not mean to assume you had kids, sorry I read your respoonse at 12AM and read the line "keep it away from kids" as "keep it away from my kids." A simple error. As to the homosexual unit in your history class, that is not promoting homosexuality or trying to force any form of morality into you, it is presenting historical fact. Homosexuals, just like African Americans, Women, Whites, Indians, or ANY other group (and don't tell me we don't learn about straight or white history because learning US history is basically learning the history of straight, white males, as they have had almost all the power since the creation of the nation). It would be historically ignorant NOT to mention homosexuals in history class as they played a role in history. This is not 1984, you cannot just remove portions of history and call them insignificant or non-existent. The homosexual movement has, and continues to have, a role in American history, and it is ignorant to say we can just ignore that because its a "controversial" issue. Should we remove learning about African Americans in history because it is pushing African Americans into the classroom and upsetting the racist (not accusing you of being racist, just using this as an example), of course not. It is important to try and learn history in its entirety, it is then we can truly learn from it in seeing how every individual aspect fit together to form the chain of events of history. The "it's in schools and therefore forced upon me" argument could be used to remove the teaching of ANYTHING. I dislike Irish authors, I think that they are a scourge upon the Earth and are harmful to American society, does that mean that we should stop teaching Joyce? Think about what you are implying with your words. You are implying that just because an individual does not like something, means it should stop being discussed or studied. I personally don't like the Catholic Church (surprised?) but I learned about it almost every day in World History. Did I particularly want to learn the history of the church? No. But I recognized its vast importance in the history of the world, got over my dislike because I KNEW that it was important to learn if I was to understand human history. Just because something is not like, does not remove its historical importance. [[User: AndrasK|AndrasK]] 8:23 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Once again, AndrasK addressed many points I would have myself, so I'll just offer a "Nicely said!" and add a brief comment. Ultimahero, what keeps coming up in your statements is that your principal objection to same-sex marriage is not based on it causing any direct, material harm, but that it's based on offensiveness to your values. That's a legitimate reason to object to anything, and your values aren't being judged. What's key here is that in a free society, the best government is one that provides the greatest equality among people with the least intervention. The government is not going to tell a religion who it can and can't marry, but at the the same time, it shouldn't be telling two adults they can't be legally married based on their gender if all the other criteria for getting a marriage license are met. What the conservative, mostly-republican judges ruled is that society treats married people differently than unmarried people or "domestic partners", and that there's no compelling reason for the state to draw that distinction in law. Maturity and wisdom comes in part from accepting differences in others that we don't approve of, when those differences are not harming us in any material way. The older I get, the more I realize though my own experiences that I was wrong for judging people with different values in my youth, because I don't want to be judged for mine. (For example, I'm tired of being told I'm going to spend an eternity in Hell for not being a born-again Christian, and when I worked for one, I always wondered if that affected my reviews and promotions no matter how good my performance was). At this point in life, I appreciate the vision of Dr. King when he dreamed of a world where people were judged for the content of their character - period. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:00, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

To AndrasK:

The whole point of my arguing about polygamy, child marriage, etc. is simply to say that anything can be allowed if love is all that matters. We have already agreed previously that this is an insufficient standard, so I’m trying to continue this point with you. We’re already in agreement on that. Churches are under no obligation to perform marriage, but they can’t disregard the law. If homosexual marriage is legalized, then both they and heterosexuals will have the same legal rights. So, if the church permits one and refuses another, homosexuals could argue it as discrimination. There’s lot’s of examples like this. Businesses are under o obligation to provide whatever product they produce. Yet if a business were to come out and say “we refuse to serve gays”, would you honestly say that that would get taken to court at some point? It would be based on the fact that legally homosexuals have the right to marry, just like heterosexuals, yet churches only accept the latter. That could be discrimination, depending on your perspective.

Interesting perspective on the history fact. The problem is that is isn’t an unbiased presentation. The various black, women, etc. movements are presented with the underlying tone of, “see how wrong this was.” Which it should be. Slavery and oppression was wrong. But homosexuality doesn’t fit in that same category. Homosexuality isn’t being opposed out of prejudice (well, I suppose that some might be, but mot aren’t) but rather on moral grounds. If this were just unbiased issue, then it might not be that bad to simply learns facts of what have happened. But it never will be, because the people involved are just that: people. People, whether consciously or not, people will inject their own bias into this. True, I suppose on could say they don’t like anything and have it be taken out. But, ‘Irish authors’ or other things would not face realistic opposition. That, as well as most things, would face no serious risk f being removed. The church is not being presented along with theology and saying, “kids, Jesus died from your sins”. It’s simply being presented as a historical institution. I certainly agree that we shouldn’t take things out of discussion just because it’s controversial. But when you’re talking about a controversial moral issue, then is it right to take one side in the schools? I say it’s not. You and me talking about it? Fine. We’re two private citizens engaging in our own conversation. But a school is different. It’s influential kids who are by law required to go to school and sit in on those courses.

To DinsdaleP:

Yes, I am primarily opposed to homosexuality on moral grounds. I think it is wrong. Easy as that. But, when it comes to the overall society, I look at it differently. I think it will lower the overall values of society. I’m not looking at things from my moral, but a societal stance as a whole. I think homosexuals would not make as effective parents as heterosexuals. That’s not morality. That’s looking out for the well-being of kids. I worry about the ramifications on churches. That’s a legal stance. Yes, people can do whatever they want in there own homes. But, when it comes out into the streets and into the courts and into the classrooms, then it’s a different matter. I agree that people should have equality. But, that’s tricky because “equality” means different things depending on whose defining it. Obviously, you and I see it differently. You may not like being told that without Christ your going to Hell. Well, I don’t like constantly being told that homosexuality is an acceptable alternative lifestyle. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 12:15, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:Okay, I think AndrasK and I have addressed the point that love is not all that matters where marriage is concerned, so tangents about polygamy, bestiality or loving one's table are not relevant. It's also a given that the government has no right to interfere in the practices of a religion, unless it involves criminal acts like statutory rape, human sacrifice, etc. Your have the right to your opinions, and it's not my place to declare them invalid. It's just that as a society, we have to have laws that are based on reason and not opinions. You can assert that homosexuality lowers the overall values of society, but I doubt you can prove it in any objective way.

:If you look at the stories about the 1950's and 1960's civil rights movement in the south, you'd see many examples of everyday citizens believing deeply that an unsegregated society would be worse off than a segregated one. There was no basis in fact for this - it was all about "values" and "traditions" and maintaining "a way of life that's important to people". It is also something most people would disavow today. You feel that allowing same-sex marriage sends the wrong message in schools, but kids in public schools aren't being taught that same-race marriage is better or worse than mixed-race marriage, and they're not going to be taught that homosexuality is good or bad - just that like race, it's not grounds for discrimination in the eyes of the law.

:You would also be hard-pressed to provide any objective proof that a same-sex couple would not raise a child as well as a mixed-gender couple. We would never expect the government to require single parents to immediately marry or to turn their kids over to be raised by couples for the well-being of the kids. Parenting is personal, and as long as there's no abuse or neglect it's not the government's place to tell anyone how to raise their kids. That standard carries over by extension to same-sex parenting. Frankly, it's a shame that there are kids living in orphanages instead of homes with parents because of adoption policies that prevent adoption by single-sex couples. Are the kids really better off being raised by an institution?

:What I'd like to know then, is this. On the streets and in the courts and in the classrooms, it doesn't matter who's married or single, or what their religion is. Why would it cause anyone material harm if some people are married to the same gender, when it doesn't cause harm based on whether they were married in a church or not, or to the same race? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:58, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

No, you haven’t. There have been repeated attempts to refute why those groups can’t marry. But that’s not the point. The point I’m raising is that your standard is problematic. Love isn’t enough. If it is, then anyone can marry as long as they love each other. Neither is love and consent, because that doesn’t deal with polygamy, etc. I’m not asking you to refute these other groups. I’m asking for a better standard.

Well proof is different than persuasion. I might be able to prove a point, but that doesn’t mean that I’ll convince you. It lowers societies standards in regards to marriage because society has for a long time said “one man, one woman.” Now we’re trying to lower that bar. (That effectively proves the point in and of itself because we are indeed lowering the standard.) But, to go further, it effectively makes it easier to lower the standard in the future. If the definition for marriage can just be tweaked a little bit, just pushed a little farther, then the next thing in line is permissible. Then the next, and so on.

You keep playing the race card. But the way blacks were treated is much different that they way the gays are treated. Blacks were slaves, weren’t allowed to vote, were forced to use separate facilities, etc. That’s not what’s happening to gays. They aren’t being enslaved or having their freedoms taken away. Quite frankly, it’s an outlandish and offensive example.

Kids in schools aren’t being taught that same-race marriages are good or bad. But that’s because no one talks about same-race marriages. Why? Because it’s irrelevant. Race has no bearing on marriage. Gender, however, does. What sex the people are does matter. And that is being brought up, and they are being taught that it’s okay. When schools are told to report if there are any kids who “speak out” against homosexuality, then that’s a negative influence. “Speak out” could include someone saying it’s wrong. Pretty soon, it becomes impossible to even object to it. That’s teaching them it’s okay by silencing the opposition.

I can easily demonstrate that same-sex couples aren’t as effective as heterosexual couples. Where do kids primarily learn things such as what’s okay and what’s not, how to treat each other, etc.? From their families. They see what goes on at home and that is their primary example to model. Boys need their fathers to see what men act like, girls need their mothers to see how women act. And both need to see the opposite sex to see how it’s proper to treat the other. (Are they respectful to one another, etc.) But with same-sex couples, you run into a road block: There inherently won’t be only a mother and a father. Granted, one could say what about divorced families or single parents. But kids who grow up in divorced homes still have a mom and dad. They may not live together, but they still have them. And single parents still do as well, assuming that one hasn’t died. But in that case do you take the kids away because a parent died? Of course not. With mom-dad couples, you might run into instances where the kid doesn’t have a mom or dad. But with same-decouples you will never have both a mom and a dad because you can’t be definition.

There needs to be more adoption certainly, and less premarital sex that brings kids into unwanted families, certainly. But that doesn’t mean that we let homosexual couples adopt to remedy that. That just creates more problems.

I’m not sure I fully understand the last question. Race, as I’ve already said, is irrelevant to marriage. It has no bearing. Same goes for religion. They simply have no bearing on marriage, and it’s a category mistake to put them into the same category as gender. Gender and sexual orientation have to have an impact by definition. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 13:45, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Yes, because even if you disagree with the principle of what Homosexual people do (I perosnally have no problem with it), it makes no dfference to YOU if they can or cannot. How does it affect YOU if the person someone loves wants to legally leave their possessions behind once they die? Wants it to be officially known that they want to spend the rest of their life with the person they love? You can disagree with it via what you read in the Bible, but there are laws in place that contradict the Bible's message, Mr. Schlafly. [[User:SIMONR2|SIMONR2]]

==No==
It's said that it is discrimination to be against homosexual marriage. But, whether you agree with it or not, you have to look at things from the Christian perspective to see where we are coming from. As a Christian, I see the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin, therefore I am against it. It's not about prejudice. It's just the fact I have a moral obligation to stand against anything that is wrong. I am against homosexuality in the same sense that I am against stealing. I consider them both to be wrong. Would someone say that I'm discriminating against thieves when I say that's wrong? Of course not. I don't think that homosexuals should be treated badly, or made fun of, but it is wrong and Christians have to say so.
: I do agree that Christians should say it's wrong if that is what they believe in. But I do believe that not allowing them to marry is unconstitutional, because of the first amendment that states "no law should be made enforcing or discriminating religion" (I'm paraphrasing here.) and if a law were to be passed, it would be enforcing a religious value on people that may not believe in what the people that put that action into law believe. But, even though I think gay marriage is OK, I also support peoples right to say its wrong, start up "rehab" for gay people (If the homosexual chooses to go there and its not tax-funded), and tell the world what they think about the issue. As long as the wall of separation between church and state is intact, and that homosexuals are not verbally or physically harassed, I believe it is OK for Christians (and any other religion) to say its wrong and not like it. --[[User:ITSAMEMARIO|ITSAMEMARIO]] 18:47, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

The first amendment deals with not being able to keep some one from practicing a particular religion, or force to them to practice it. Homosexuality is not a religion. And although it is opposed on religious grounds, there are also cultural and sociological factors involved, so it really doesn't fit into what the first amendment outlines. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 17:42, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Why is it that you consider it a moral obligation to believe the part of the Bible that says that homosexuality is a sin when other parts of the Bible are discarded as culturally antiquated or irrelevant to a given sect (i.e. the eating of shellfish, the call to embrace revenge over forgiveness in the Old Testament)? The Bible is not a single document, but a compilation of a number of different sources with diverse perspectives and (at times) contradictory values.
--[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 19:47, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

With all due respect, you don't know what I believe, so you can't really make a claim that I only believe part of the Bible and not another. Now, nothing is ever "disregarded" when you consider culture, etc. It is simply looking at things in their proper context. But, what you gave as examples don't fit the culture aspect.

The Old Testament law is split up into three basic categories: the priestly laws, the civil laws, and the moral laws. The priestly laws are no longer applicable today because they were fulfilled by Christ. (Ex: The Old Testament required animal sacrifice for the remission of sins, but in the New Testament Christ is sacrificed once for all sins.) The civil laws are also not applicable because they were in place in the Old Testament in a Theocratic system. Obviously, we live a democracy, not a theocracy, so the same laws don't apply. (I would also point out that as Christians we are no longer under the law, according to Romans 6:14-15.) The moral laws, however, are still in effect because they reflect the nature and character of God. (Ex: Lying is wrong because God can't lie.) So because God's character never changes, neither do the moral laws.

Plus, in the New Testament we don't see the civil or priestly laws reestablished, but we do see the moral law reestablished. That is why the New Testament still calls homosexuality wrong, but not with the associated death penalty.

And the Bible does not present contradictory values. Maybe things that are difficult, but not contradictory. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 01:01, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

Gay marriage doesn't exist. The term is an inherent oxymoron. Marriage by definition is the union of one man and one woman, This is God's definition is will always be the true definition. A lie told a million times is still a lie--[[User:TedM|TedM]] 23:18, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

==It Depends==
*If the marriage is going to be carried out as a religious service, it should be up to the relevant religious authorities. If the marriage is nonreligious (carried out by a justice of the peace, or Elvis, for example), then it should be allowed. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 18:38, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

But a religious group can't refuse to follow the law. So if homosexual marriage is legal, they would be forced to adhere to that law, regardless of what they believe. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 20:27, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

That is not the intent of homosexual marriage advocated, myself included. I fully recognize any religion's right to refuse to marry homosexuals. Marriage in the religious sense should be left up to each religion. If the Catholic church wishes not to recognize gay marrriage, that is 100% their prerogative. What I am advocating, however, is legal gay marriage. In that a gay couple can obtain a marriage license via the same requirements that heterosexual couple can. No church would be forced to perform a ceremony, and they would not be forced to recognize the marriage as marriage licenses offer legal, not religious benefits. Only churches that desire to perform gay ceremonies would. The gay marriage issue is about LEGAL rights and LEGAL recognition by the government, not RELIGIOUS recognition by any church or organization. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 20:27, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

I understand what your saying, but it is about religion. Right now it's being pushed for homosexuality to be added to the list of hate crime victims. This means that if Christians don't like it and speak out against it, and then someone who overheard it went out and beat up a homosexual (I'm certainly not advocating that) , then the church that originally spoke out could be sued or shut down for promoting 'hate speech'. Similarly, if homosexuality was legalized, and a church refused to perform a ceremony for two homosexuals, then that could be labeled as discrimination and that church would suffer consequences. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 20:42, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

So as I can tell, you fear that if gay marriage was legalized and if gays were added to hate crime lists, then churches would face discrimination? May I ask why it is okay that gays are discriminated against, but not churches. As to the specific cases you mentioned. In this country, we thankfully still have (more or less) have first amendment rights. Nazi groups, white supremacy (and I am not comparing the church to these groups, just using them as examples) still can exist, as they should be able to, as long as they don't actively advocate violence against Jews, African Americans, whoever. Much like any group (be it Nazis, gay rights advocates, or anyone else) churches could continue to speak as they will as long as they don't advocate direct violence. As to the marriage aspect of it, as long as the law clearly states that no religious organization can be forced to marry any two individuals, then there is no basis for legal discrimination. Socially, people who think that the church discriminate will continue to do the same, and those that don't won't. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 20:51, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Yes, I do fear that Christians will face discrimination. I think hate crimes are stupid (not to debate that; it's a different topic) because they deal will motivation and intent. If I as a Christian exercise my Constitutional right to free speech and say I think something is wrong, then I can risk punishment. I know you might advocate that churches should be able to still voice opinions, but not everyone thinks that way. And yes, discrimination against homosexuals is wrong, too. But the marriage thing is not discrimination, because everyone has the same rights. Giving homosexuals the right to marry based off of their sexual preference, which is a behavior, would be discrimination. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 21:03, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Just because not everyone believes that churches should be able to voice anti-homosexuality opinions does not mean they won't be allowed to. As before mentioned, other groups face much more dissent than the Catholic Church, but they are allowed to voice their opinions under 1st amendment protection. As to the marriage aspect once again. I wouldn't call gay marriage discrimination but I understand your point. However, history has shown that specific legislature is often needed to protect the rights of minorities. We have specific laws regarding women (although no equal rights amendment amazingly) that protect them and give them specific protections (not rights, just protections) under the law. The same is true for African Americans, and other minorities. Minorities often need to be recognized legally to ensure the mantainence of their rights. And to use a very popular argument on this site, if gay marriage were to be passed, then heterosexuals would have the same rights to marry someone of their sex. That may seem odd to you, but the argument that we gays have equal rights in that we can marry members of the other sex is equally odd.[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 21:16, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Your right in that just because some don't want Christians to be able to speak out against homosexuals doesn't mean it will happen. But there are signs that we, in reference to us Christians, are going to be in trouble. I've heard there's a law out here in California that if a homosexual feels he or she has been discriminated against, then they can file a law suit and the state will pay all their legal fees. The defendant, on the other hand, would have to pay their own way. This has scary implications, because a homosexual could file a law suit and be backed up by the state, which has in all practical terms unlimited resources, while a church would have to pay for itself when most churches are struggling financially anyways. And I know that the homosexual movement is sometimes compared to the black or women's movement, but it's not the same. Blacks were fighting against slavery, which was clearly wrong, as well as Jim Crows laws sending to the back of the bus, etc. And women for a long time couldn't even vote. But homosexuals aren't facing that. No serious person is saying that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to vote or should have to use separate facilities. It is simply in regards to marriage and sexual preference, which is a behavioral issue. And you could say that allowing homosexuality would still give everyone the same rights, but I could say that if murderers wanted to legally murder and a law was passed to allow it, then would it be okay because "you can now legally murder too?" (I'm not equating murderers and homosexuals, just using that as a rather extreme example to prove a point.) [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 21:42, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

To identify the issue with the whole California thing. This type of extreme legislature (which I am against by the way. If the state is paying for one side, it should pay for the other as well) is often suggested, and even if passed, quickly altered. For example, under LBJ's presidency, federal funds were given to schools to allow busing for inner-city schools to outer-city schools to try and reduce de facto segregation (I am using the Civil Rights movement because it is a good historical precedence. You say that the gay rights movement cannot be compared to the African American or Women's movements. Its specifics and severity is certainly different, however, the theory and ideology behind it is not). This law was overturned rather quickly. We find that this country operates in knee-jerk reactions and extremes. Yes there may be some extreme legislature at the very beginning, but such legislature rarely lasts. Time ultimately smooths out the extremes in social policy.

As to the murder idea, that is different in that murder (or other such crimes such as rape, assault etc) physically harm other people. I can hardly see an argument that gay marriage somehow directly, physically harms people.
[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:08, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Oh, I wasn't trying to say that homosexual marriage physically harms people like murder does. Like I said, I wasn't trying to equate the two. The point was that you had mentioned if homosexuality was made legal, then everyone would still have the same rights because heterosexuals would have that right by extension. So I was just saying that is if murder was hypothetically made legal, then everyone still has the same rights because even non-murderers would be able to legal murder. My point is that, yes, the rights would still be the same, but that doesn't make murder right, and, similarly, homosexual marriage being passed doesn't make it right or beneficial to society. And the ideology of the black movement compared to the homosexual movement isn't quite the same. Blacks were being picked on because of racism and prejudice. When it comes to homosexuality, yes, there are some who are motivated by prejudice, but many such as myself come at it from a strictly moral stance. I'm against it because the Bible says it's wrong. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 22:17, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

I understand that gay marriage is against your moral code, and I respect that, but what this country is based on is the allowance of multiple opinions to coexist in harmony. You don't have to recognize gay marriage, think it is right, think it is natural or any other such thing. It is you perogative to have any such views you desire on the subject. It is important to realize the difference between secular marriage (perhaps I should use the word union?) and religious marriage. The Bible indeed dictates religious marriage for christianity, but it does not dictate secular marriage. The Bible also says (correct me if I am wrong, I am not very versed in the Bible. I mean this seriously, not sarcastically) that atheism is a sin, as is sex before marriage? Yet you do not oppose the secular marriage of two atheists, or two non-virgins. Now to clarify my stance, I do not believe the Bible should have any authority in dictating governmental and legal marriage. In this socio-political climate, however, I must be pragmatic. Now my question is, why is it that homosexuality is cornered out as massively sinful and thus not eligible for marriage, when atheists and non-virgins are? By the way, I would like to thank you for being logical and rational in this debate. Both sides are much to prone to sensationalism; rational debate seems to be less and less common these days. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:56, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

As a Christian, I hold the Bible in the utmost regard. I consider it to be the holy word of God, infallible and inherent. But, this being said, I fully recognize that not everyone holds that same opinion. Your an Atheist, correct? I definitely don't expect you to hold the Bible in any special light, and that's fine. You're entitled to your own worldview. So I also wouldn't say that we should create any law "just because the Bible says so". I run my life, to the best of my ability, based on what the Bible says. But I don't want to force you to. I primarily oppose homosexuality because of Biblical reasons, but the reasons why I think homosexual marriage should not be legalized has to do with societal issues, such as I don't see it as being beneficial to society, etc. As for why Atheists can marry and non-virgins as well, it has to do with context. I wouldn't oppose two heterosexual Atheists marrying because heterosexual marriage is good, regardless of whether the participants are Christians, Atheists, or whatever. And for non-virgins, yes, it is a sin to have sex outside of marriage. But there is nothing in the Bible that says that someone who has committed that sin couldn't later get married, so I see no reason to be against it. (Besides, the Jesus said that to lust after a woman in your heart is to commit adultery of the heart, so even if someone hasn't committed the physical act, everyone is guilty of lust.) And once they marry, then they're no longer committing the sin of sex outside of marriage, so it's better in that sense. So it’s about context. With homosexual marriage, homosexuality is the problem. Even if both homosexuals claimed to be Christian I would still be against it because homosexuality is the sin. And yes, thank you for being very logical and friendly. I often hear a lot of insults, (and they come from both sides), so thanks for being polite. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:16, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

My question is this. I see some benefits to society to allow gay marriage, and I see no societal harms. Benefits include financial and legal aid which can be helpful for the raising of a child. One of the societal arguments I hear most often is that gay marriages cannot produce children (I would like to point out that neither can marriages in which the couple is sterile, or simply choose not to). Gay couples can adopt one or more of the hundreds of thousands of parentless children in the country and world as a whole. The idea that marriage is simply for procreation seems ludicrous to me, coupled with the fact that we currently face overpopulation, it seems as if the human race can surely survive. I am not quite sure what societal issues you are referring to when you say they oppose gay marriage. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 23:29, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Well first off I think that we can both agree that the male and female is the natural option. Obviously they're bodies are designed to fit together. And yes, there is overpopulation. (One of the reasons why I and other Christians would stress abstinence until marriage, for the sake of not bringing yet another unwanted child into the world.) And yes, a gay couple could try to raise the child, sure. But the question is: would a homosexual couple be as effective at raising a child as a heterosexual couple? And I think that the answer is no, they couldn't. Keep in mind that I'm not saying that homosexuals are incapable of raising kids, but rather that they would simply not be as good as a mom and a dad. Because no matter how feminine a man may get, he can't substitute for a mother. And no matter how masculine a woman gets, she will never be a true father. Men and women are different. One's not better than the other, but they do posses different qualities that when coupled together compliment each other nicely. They're like the two different pieces to a puzzle. They just fit together. So I would wonder if same-sex couples could adequately raise kids when they won't have the full range of characteristics that men and women together posses. And, considering how kids can get made fun of in school for practically anything, having homosexuals parents just adds one more thing to shoot at them. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 01:15, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Please keep in mind that many gay couples who want to get married don't do so to have (or get) children, but instead to receive recognition of their love to each other. In some countries non married couples including homosexuals are able to adopt children, so banning homosexual marriages will not stop gays raising kids, this is an entirely different issue. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 01:22, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Granted. But I was addressing a previous point about how homosexual couple could adopt kids and help with overpopulation and I was simply comparing parenting ability. As for what other nations do, I can’t really comment on that. I don't have enough knowledge about how they go about things to say one thing or another, so I can really only talk about what happens in the United States. That's what I'm familiar with. But to address just homosexuality in general apart from kids? I understand that they want to show their love, but that's not enough. Love isn't all there is to it. Should kids be able to marry just because they love one another? [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 01:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

As to the children aspect of this conversation. You say that a man can never replace a mother and a woman a father. Yet we have hundreds of thousands of single parent families. Single people are allowed to adopt children and/or have children. If it is acceptable for a child to have only one mother and no father, what is wrong with having two mothers? @StatsMsn, yes many gay couples just want recognition of their love. But so do hundreds of thousands of couples who marry and choose not to have children. If they are allowed to marry for recognition why not gays? Finally, regarding the child marriage. Please do not insult this hereto rational debate. We are speaking purely in the realm of acts and legal standing of legal and consensual adults.
[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 10:02, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Yes, they're are lots of single parents. Many come by in the case of one parent dying. In those cases, you can't really say much, because they tried to raise the kids with both parents, but one unfortunately passed on. You can't really take kids away from them. Some are single because of divorce. I am against divorce, but as I've said before on this post, there are times when divorce is necessary. Adulterous or abusive spouses, etc, so you can't make divorce illegal because it can be legitimately necessary. And, even if they divorce, the kid still has a mom and dad. They might not live together, but they still have them.

Now, to what I said about child marriage. Please do not take away the courteously that we have so far had towards one another. That was a perfectly rational point. Yes, child marriage is not legal, but neither is homosexual marriage. If we can only discuss what's legal, then we shouldn't be having this debate at all. My point was that love is not all you need. It is certainly the single biggest factor, but there are other things that matter, too. If love is the only thing, then why can't kids marry if they love one another? It's a somewhat extreme example, certainly, but it's intended to show that more than just love is required. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 13:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

I am not saying love is all that is required in marriage, one large aspect of marriage is responsibility, commitment, and maturity. That is why children are not allowed to marry. The country has deemed that children, and rightly (there are a few outliers, and I would include myself in this group, that are more mature) that under the age of 18, children are not legal adults. Thus they cannot sign legal documents without a guardian as well, they cannot enter contracts without a guardian, they cannot be treated as adults. The question of gay marriage is not are gays mature enough to enter marriage, but do we/should we have the right to under the US constitution. The reason why kids cannot marry is one of maturity, the reason why gays cannot marry, well I don't quite know, but it is not of maturity. Also I would like to ask, though I do not concur with your argument, how is a heterosexual couple getting married "just for love" any less threatening to the concept of adolescent marriage than homosexual couples getting married. I understand you think that "it is a slippery slope" but just on pure theory, where does that discrepancy lie.
As per the child argument, you have neglected the demographic of single parents that adopted/gave birth to a child purely on their own. Some people simply never find their life partner, and choose to have children on their own anyway. That is legal, and as it should be. If a single person all on his or her lonesome can decide to adopt/have a child, why should a two people of the same sex not have the same right? The child will undoubtedly receive more attention that way (seeing as there are two parental figures, not one) as well as enjoy the benefits of having possibly two incomes, or one income and one staying at home etc. Children of single parents by choice grow up into model citizens and valuable members of society every day, as do the children of gay couples where it is legal. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 13:36, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

I know your not saying that love is the only requirement, and I'm not trying to advocate child marriage. I know why kids can't marry, and I think that the reasons for that are good ones. It's just that one common argument that I hear is, "They love each other so they should marry." But, as we both agree, there are more factors. As far as do homosexuals have the right to marry under the Constitution, it isn't addressed or defined. As I said before, the reason for gay marriage to not be allowed (at least in my opinion) is an issue of morality and the potential benefit for society. I'm not sure I understand what your asking about heterosexuals couples marrying "just for love". Can you specify that a little more? I want to make sure I accurately understand you so I can properly respond. The slippery slope thing is that hypothetically you should line up all the various issues of marriage in order of least harmful to most harmful, (heterosexual marriage, homosexual marriage, polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia, etc.). Now, we've had a standard in place (one man and one woman). So if you move the bar down to allow for homosexuals, then it will make it easier for society to accept the next thing in line. After all, homosexuality was seen as being really bad but now it's okay, so why not _______. (Fill in the blank with whatever might come next.)

The child that is born of just one parent, presumably the mother, still has a mom and dad. She's not the virgin Mary, so there had to be conception. Now did the father take off or the parents don't want to marry, etc. I guess there's lots of theoretical scenarios there, so I can't possibly address them all. But if the dad takes off you can't punish mom and the child for that. Or if she doesn't tell the father and has the baby n her own, again, you can't take away the child and punish the kid because of the mom. Again, a single parent is not the ideal way to raise kids, either. A mom and a dad together are. But you can't reasonably say, "Single parenthood isn't ideal but it's allowed, so homosexual marriage should be allowed." That's creating more un-ideal situations and doesn’t help. And I'm certainly not saying that kids raised by homosexuals will grow up to be dysfunctional. It's just not the best way to do it. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 17:07, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Civil partnerships rather than marriages==
I would suggest, to avoid the moral and religious issues associated with the term "marriage", that it should simply be removed from the whole question. Rather than talking about "gay marriage", there should be civil partnerships which are available to any two cohabiting consenting adults. This is the approach which has been taken in the UK, and which (as far as I know) some US states are considering.

People in a civil partnership will have the same legal rights as married people regarding inheritance, welfare, etc., but they won't be "married" as regards the religious sense of the term. Civil partnerships should also be available to people living together in a non-sexual sense, e.g. cohabiting siblings.

There is already a distinction between civil and religious marriage; for instance, if you are Roman Catholic, you may be legally divorced under the civil law but still married under Catholic canon law, unless you seek an annulment of your marriage from the Church. So churches and other religious organisations would ''not'' be required to recognise secular civil partnerships.

Thus homosexual couples can have the same legal/financial advantages as married couples, without redefining the concept of marriage or upsetting the many religions which disapprove of homosexual relations. [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 12:51, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

I understand what your saying, but that wouldn't work. (At least from my perspective.) That's still legalizing gay marriage and just simply calling it something else. It's not the word marriage that should be treasured, but the institution itself, regardless of what name it's under. Besides, everyone says that government doesn't have the right to enforce religious values on everyone else. But then government also doesn't have the right to enforce secular values on society. Legalizing gay marriage is the government putting a stamp of approval on marriage and saying that it is an acceptable alternative. But it's not. I don't mean that in an insulting way, but I simply don't agree with it.

Besides, that doesn't address all of the other issues about child raising, etc. that were previously brought up. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 13:36, 5 May 2008 (EDT) 
 
Acceptible alternative to what? I think (and this is just me), if two people love each other, should they not have the right to be married and share that happyness in the greatest way. Besides, by doing this, it shows that two heterosexual people that hate each other have more of a right than two homosexuals that have a perfect right to get married. --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

Marriage is not a government institution and marriage should not be corrupted by sexual perverts, yes I said it, sexual perversion: deviating from mainstream sexuality -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 19:44, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Every time a liberal talks to me I get more conservative -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 19:45, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Debrah, no offense, but you kind of seem to be freking out. Let me just say, in defense to my liberal nature, that I am from Massachussets, the most liberal state in the country. Anywho, sexual perverts? Perverts, although I see what your saying, is very strong (then again, so was my comment on the front page). But, let's face it, does a homosexual have a choice in the matter? Before I would say that they are sexual perverts, lets take this into consideration, do you know any homosexuals and if so, have you asked them why they are homosexual? It seems to me that people don't listen to homosexuals enough and thereby try to make it seem that they are chosing it on their own free will. Am I saying they are not? No. What I am saying is that someone should at least find out. --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

I know homosexuals, and my best friend Jessica used to be a lesbian but became straight -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 19:59, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:How does one change? If one changes, would that not mean that she (and this is no offense to your friend) was bisexual? I mean, how is it possible for one to change the way that they love (and who they can love) in one thing. If she was, then does that not mean that she was part stright to begin with? This would not make her lesbien, but rather, bisexual. Again, this is all a spitball (I am going to ask a gay person I know tomarrow about this). --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

She experimented with women then she started becoming more interested in men as time went by and less interested in women, she isn't interested in women anymore, she just changed -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 20:11, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

For example, people can slowly become liberal, and eventually not be conservative anymore -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 20:11, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

That is not becoming "straight" that is just realizing your true sexuality. She had doubts, she experimented, and slowly realized her true sexuality as being heterosexual. That indeed does happen, as sexuality is a highly confusing and complicated concept within a person. Some people discover that though they had homosexual inklings, they are overall heterosexual. Others, however, discover that they are completely homosexual. Showing one example of someone discovering their sexuality isn't proof that conversion is possible. [[User: AndrasK|AndrasK]] 20:50, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Again, just because two people love each other, that's not enough. As I said earlier, should kids be able to marry if they love one another? I know it's an extreme example, but it illustrates that more than love is required. As far as whether or not homosexuals are born that way or not, well, that's debatable. From a Christian standpoint, I'd say that's somewhat legitimate. Everyone is born with things that tempt them to sin, but not everyone is tempted in the same way. Some people are naturally arrogant, some are very humble. Yet that arrogant person might be honest, while the humble man could have a problem with lying. It just depends. So homosexuals might be born that way in the sense that they are born with that natural temptation. Of course, that's no excuse to do it, since people are still not supposed to sin. (Obviously if you aren't a Christian, then you won't accept this basic premise. But I'm just illustrating this from a Christian perspective.) And there are cases where homosexuals who are adamant about their sexuality will be cured. It does happen. Whether or not you accept those results is a different matter, but there's no denying it happens. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:32, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:I understand that, and I am aware of the fact that conservative Christians believe homosexuality to be immoral, and that there is Biblical support for this standpoint. However, in modern society there is a distinction between law and morality; not everything which is immoral is necessarily illegal. The fact remains that (for better or worse) in modern society, homosexuality is a legal and accepted practice, and homosexual couples are legally entitled to live together without interference by the state. So why should the state not allow them the same practical legal rights as married couples?

:Our society tolerates practices which we do not necessarily condone. I respect your viewpoint that homosexuality is sinful, and this is a widely held viewpoint; but we don't live in a theocracy, and not all sins are crimes. I just don't understand the basis for your argument. If you are arguing that same-sex civil partnerships are a bad idea because the state should not approve or condone homosexuality, then why aren't you going the whole way and arguing for homosexuality to be made illegal? [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 11:57, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

I myself am Conservative for secular reasons, this country doesn't allow incestuous marriages, because they are immoral, the same should be true for homosexual marriage, I don't care if people love each other in a non-platonic manner, for example if a brother and a sister love each other in a non-platonic manner they shouldn't get marriage because it is sick, and the same goes for homosexual marriage -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 12:06, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Homosexuals are not born that way Columbia University did a study on twins and found out if one twin is gay the chance the other one is gay is 7% -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 12:09, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

No offense, but this why you shouldn't come into the debate in the middle of it. I already acknowledged earlier that just because the Bible says something is wrong that doesn't mean it should be illegal. I can't force moral principles onto you, and I don't want to. I'm against it from a legal standpoint because I don't think it's beneficial to society, I doubt that a homosexual couple would be as effective in raising kids as a heterosexual couple, etc. I've already outlined and given reasons for these arguments several times.

Now people do have the right to do what they want. If two homosexuals want to live together and have relationships, that's their business. I don't like it and I think it's wrong, but they have the freedom to do it. But they don't have the right to be legally married, for those earlier stated reasons and because the government doesn't have the authority to say "this is morally okay" and force it upon the rest of us. I'm not arguing for homosexuality to be illegal because, as you stated, we're not in a theocracy and I can't force that on you. But, in all fairness, homosexuality shouldn't be forced on me as an "acceptable alternative lifestyle" either. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:39, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Actually, immediate siblings and immediate family marriages are not legal because they have huge genetic implications in terms of children. Marrying further family is still actually legal in this country (depending on the relation and how the genetics would work out) [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 19:23, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

That's true. Inbreeding can lead to retardation and other problems. You don't want children coming out of those families when there's a really high statistical chance that they'll have genetic issues. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:41, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:Exactly - that's why there is an objective, secular reason for incestuous relationships to be illegal. But there is no such reason for homosexual relationships. Some people believe them to be immoral, based on religious views; others don't.

:In response to what you (Ultimahero) said earlier, allowing homosexuals to have ''civil partnerships'' (not marriages) hardly "forc[es] homosexuality" on you as "an acceptable alternative lifestyle". It doesn't affect you at all. I can understand that you would object to a law which required religious groups to conduct same-sex marriages - and I would also strongly object to such a law. Religious groups have the right to define marriage however they wish according to their doctrines, and the government should not force anything on them. But we're not talking about that. We're talking about a law which allows homosexual couples to have ''secular'' civil partnerships. So I don't see how it forces anything on you or anyone else. [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 06:37, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Okay. I just said that the reason I'm against homosexuality from a legal standpoint is because of it's not beneficial to society, homosexual parents wouldn't be as effective as heterosexual one, etc. I'm not basing the legal factor on religious values. I'm primarily against it for religious reasons, but when it comes to the legal aspect I'm not.

A civil union is the same thing as a marriage with one key difference: you don't call it marriage. As I said earlier, it's not the word "marriage" that matters, but the institution itself, whatever you may call it. And it certainly does affect me. If it affects society, it affects me. When homosexuality is strongly being pushed to be added to the list of hate crime groups, meaning that if I say anything negative about homosexuality I could get fined or jailed for spreading "hate speech", that affects me. When the "homosexual struggle" is being taught in public schools, to children nonetheless, alongside blacks-Americans struggle against racism and women’s struggle for equality, as if those movements were the same thing (which they aren't, not even close) then yes, that affects me. When a private organization like the Boy Scouts of America can be sued and forced to include homosexual scout masters, then yes, that affects me. When homosexual parades come down the street and the cries are "We're here, we're queer, get used to it", then that affects me. If gay couples were off doing there own things and keeping to themselves, then it wouldn't be an issue. But they aren't. It's an in-your-face mentality. So, yea, it affects me. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:28, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:I completely agree that homosexuality should not be added to the list of hate crime groups (I believe in free speech, and that you should have the right to criticise homosexuality if you wish to), and that the Boy Scouts of America should not be forced to include homosexual scoutmasters if it doesn't want to. As a libertarian conservative, I believe in the right of private organisations to make their own inclusion choices based on their own moral beliefs. However, that has no bearing on whether same-sex civil unions should be allowed. It isn't the same issue, and introducing civil unions will not have any effect on any of the other issues which you highlighted.

:I also wasn't making any argument about homosexual parents. As it happens, I do think that some homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt children (subject to careful vetting), but that isn't the issue here. Civil unions have nothing to do with the right to adopt children; it's a completely separate issue. [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 15:15, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

The adoption of children is relevant in the sense that if civil unions are allowed, then it is a recognized family. I suppose it subjective to how you define it, but the gay couple in question would be legally recognized the same way that any heterosexual couple would be. So the issue of children being raised is an inevitable follow up.

Granted, civil unions aren't directly related to those other issues. But, this basically has the to do with the Domino Effect. First gay marriage isn’t even thinkable. Then civil union's are allowed, because that gives homosexuals some recognition, but it's not quite marriage. (I would still argue it is the same basic thing, but I digress.) But of course gay couples won't be happy with that. No, because we call it something else instead of marriage, then they'll feel like they're not really equal and will demand full-blown marriage. And since we've already conceded most of the basic rights of marriage to them anyways, why not just go the extra mile? But then when some Christian group in some church somewhere refuses to do a service for a homosexual couple based on moral principles, and they will be sued. After all, if homosexuals are added to the hate crime list (I know you personally said your against it, but still bear with me) then it's discrimination to treat them that way. You can’t talk badly about their sexual orientation or refuse them service of any kind because of it. The churches will either be forced to recognize them, or will be shut down, or the members fined or jailed. It's all one thing that leads to another. So, no, a civil union isn't directly causing those other issues, but they are all inherently linked. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:47, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:This is a slippery slope argument, which, formally speaking, is a logical fallacy. I do understand what you're saying, but I am arguing that we should allow civil unions and ''stop there''. As I said, I believe in the libertarian principles of free speech and association - thus you should be able to criticise homosexuality if you wish, and churches and other private organisations should not have to recognise same-sex marriage or perform other services for homosexuals if they don't wish to. This is why I'm against "hate speech laws" in general, and why I think anti-discrimination laws have gone too far. On the other hand, I firmly believe that the ''government'' (as opposed to private organisations) should be required to treat all people equally, homosexual or heterosexual. Thus, the government should recognise same-sex civil unions, but private organisations (including churches) should not be forced to. I don't accept your argument that recognising civil unions is going to lead to this massive landslide which will lead to churches being shut down and their members arrested; that isn't realistically going to happen (especially given that the "free exercise of religion" is explicitly protected by the US Constitution). [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 16:39, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Which logical fallacy applies here? I can't see how it is illogical. The example I gave is hypothetical, I acknowledge that. But it's a realistic possibility. I know that you might say stop at civil unions, but it won't end there. Even now, when civil unions aren't allowed, there's a push for gay marriage. Logically, if it's being pushed for now, without any precedent, then why should we assume that it will end if they do get civil unions? That's like saying we want X, but we'll stop once we get 90% of it. That doesn't make sense. If you can get 90%, why not go for the whole thing? It will lead to full marriage. And I understand that you don't want private organizations to be forced to accept homosexuality. But, we've already seen it happen. I gave the Boy Scouts as an example. Again, the precedent has been set that homosexuals can impose their will upon private organizations if they push hard enough. Why should I believe that they won't do it to churches? We're the biggest one opposing them. If they can shut us up then that just helps them. I know this is all just theory because we're talking about something that has yet to happen, but I see no logical reason to assume that it will stop at civil unions. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:18, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

And the Constitution gets reinterpreted all the time. All it takes is for a majority on the Supreme Court, which would currently be five people, to rule that the Constitution doesn't protect religion if they are "discriminating". [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:20, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Excellent point with the Supreme Court Ultimahero, it happens all the time with The Bill of Rights. Does anyone know what infringe means compared to gun control. The slippery slope arguement is very valid (gun control are examples). You are talking about changing laws to your liking and not the majority. I would like the "adult" age lowered to 12 (just to emphasis the point)so the children can legally give condent. Texas recently (within the last 10 years) raised the marriage age from 14 to 18 after the Mormon church moved in.So much for religious freedom since the marriages where already in place.
Just because you are an adult does not mean you can do anything you wish. 18 is the adult age but you still can not legally drink alcohol. There are other examples where adults can not do things until they are of appropiate age. Homosexual marriage does affect everyone. What legal statuses are you trying to obtain that doesn't affect the entire population and isn't already available elsewhere (other laws)?