EL-DUDERINO

[quote]But who gets to define which opinion constitutes a "religious belief"? What if a Unitarian Church member campaigns for homosexual marriage because his religion tells him that there should be such a thing? Would a law allowing homosexual marriage supported by him constitute religion forced on others?[/quote] The difference is that gay marriage, or civil unions, isn't being forced on anyone. No one is trying to state that the only allowed unions are between two members of t

[quote]You misunderstand the "denominations" of Judaism. They do not actually believe different things. They vary in traditions, not belief. They are also not "different" Judaisms, there is only one Jewish people. Religious Jews keep kosher and observe the Shabbas in the most strict way. Non-religious Jews do not. Traditional Jews are somewhere in the middle. But they believe the same things. They do not have different ideas of the nature of G-d (like the Christian denominations do

[quote]That legislature is elected by the people, I assume. Hence people's opinions matter. My opinion is certainly shaped by my religious beliefs (and vice versa).[/quote] Yes I mean the elected government. And our government has a freedom of religion as well as a freedom from religion so that anyones religious beliefs are not forced on others. Hence civil unions should be definied simply as between consenting adults and nothing more. If people want to get married t

[quote]Sacred Scripture is God's written word and since God is not a God of confusion, there can be only one correct sense of it's meaning otherwise we'd have total confusion as to its meaning.[/quote] Is this why there are so many different denominations of Christianity, not to mention all the denominations of judaism (I apologize if my spelling is off), or the different versions of Islam, etc. If there is supposed to be only one correct interpretation then who has it right?&nb

[quote]really? Where? Funny El-D you seem to know so much about scripture that you don't read. [/quote] "But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an <span style="font-s

[quote]Hope can only come from the Word Incarnate, that is, from our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. [/quote] I disagree with this 100%. Now that doesn't mean that I buy into Obama's version of "Hope" as a catchphrase but I have hope for the future and I don't need god or Jesus Christ to give it to me. Hope is NOT a religious concept. [quote]Some of those I agree with and some I don't.[/quote] Excellent comment. I too agree with some of the items, but

[quote]no, one does not choose to be a slave....but one does choose whom to have sex with.[/quote] But you don't choose who you are attracted to. And I was talking about a religion saying that one thing is ok when clearly it was not, why can't that be extrapolated to apply to our current discussion? [quote]really? Where? Funny El-D you seem to know so much about scripture that you don't read.[/quote] Just because I don't study the bible doesn't mean that I have

[quote]The homosexual movement is attempting to make the immoral moral.[/quote] Morality is subjective. What is moral to you may be immoral to another, and vice versa. The mormon's once taught that slavery and/or segregation was justified because their religious text said it was, did that make slavery and/or segregation right? They have since changed their ways, but it took a while. This is the same kind of thing.

[quote]Outside the pub instead of inside.[/quote] The smoke sticks to your clothing, hair, etc therefore being outside smoking doesn't really change anything. [quote]Throwing bottles at yourself is legal.[/quote] We've already covered this at length. [quote](definition of ban: "A prohibition imposed by law"; definition of illegal: "Prohibited by law").[/quote] The difference is how the two are applied. Making smoking illegal would mean that it wou

[quote]The Jews well understood "abomination" as a commom way of referring to sexual sin like sodomy. Lev. 18:22.[/quote] Leviticus refers a lot of things as abominations, not just homosexuality. It claims that eating shellfish is an abomination for example. [quote]Yes to all three questions. And since God comdemns homosexuality, we therefore must do the same unless we want unhappiness and chaos.[/quote] But the government is supposed to be secular in nature.&nbs

[quote]Nice post Doc. Thanks for sharing.[/quote] I second the notion.

[quote]No, but you evidently missed the part where I pointed to any unemployment being short term.[/quote] How is it going to be short term when you are killing the major source of income for people of the south? By killing that industry you are essentially killing the economy in the South. Yes some will be able to find other work, but not all, there will be nothing short term about it. [quote]You're arguing over the difference between something being banned and so

[quote]El-D....let me ask you this and please answer me honestly...have you read Chap 18 (end of) and 19 of Genesis in context to get the plain meaning of the text? It has nothing about applying today's values one twit. The text has NOTHING to do with hospitality unless you want to say "gross inhospitality" meaning they wanted to "know" them way too well. [/quote] I haven't read it in a good 20 or so years. I mearly offering a possible explanation as to why you and L

[quote]So now you have to ask yourself and be totally objective.....would there be an outcry that reached God's ears over hospitality or could it be something much more grievous? So grievious and wicked was this city there are many references to this city in the NT. [/quote] But you are applying todays values to the story. Maybe at the time that it "happened" it was more wicked to be inhospitable. Like I said I'm not biblical scholar but just a thought on another possible

[quote]Homosexuality ends up harming everyone, the practicioners, their families, friends, the community and the greater society.[/quote] How? [quote]Before reading this, I was in favor of the government recognizing same sex marriages, but I think Zubaz brings up a good point that the government should not involve itself in marriages and should simply recognize civil unions for both same sex and heterosexual couples as that way it doesn't have to involve itself in any religiou

[quote]The ancient civilizations where homosexuality flourished? Well, ummmm they didn't make the cut. Sodom and Gomorrah, ancient Greece and Rome fell or were destroyed because of such sexual pervision. [/quote] I'm no biblical scholar so I can't speak for Sodom and Gomorrah but I have heard from some sources that the story may have been mis-interpretted. As for Greece and Rome they didn't fall because they accepted homosexuality, they fell due to corruption and other reasons

[quote]Same gender 'marriage' is absurd.[/quote] Why is it so absurd for two people who love each other to want to make a life-long commitment to one another? Same sex marriage is no more absurd than opposite sex marriage.

[quote]Dig holes in the ground and fill them in again - at least then no-ones being harmed. That or just have them look for jobs in other markets where they can provide a benefit to society. I can't see the tobacco industry as requiring such specific skills that it's really hard for people to switch jobs anyway.[/quote] You can't work if there aren't any jobs available and jobs are created through a demand for some product or service. Yes the tobacco growers could probably switc

[quote]you people keep calling health care a entitlement like some people don't deserver the right to be healthy and the right to have good doctors[/quote] My concern is not so much whether or not health care is considered an entitlement as much as whether I think that government can run healthcare in an efficient manor that will actually benefit the people. When I think about that my answer is no, government can't deliver that to the people so I would much rather see healthcare

[quote]which is, none at all whatsoever[/quote] But currently marriage does provide benefits. Married couples are allowed to file taxes jointly, spouses are the medical proxy in the event that one is incapacitated, upon death the spouse automatically inherits the estate, etc. Those same benefits should be extended to same sex couples.

I don't care whether it is called marriage or civil unions but whatever it is called I think the same benefits should be extended to heterosexual and homosexual couples. Traditionally marriage has mainly about making it easier to exchange property. Look at what marriages were done for in medival times, often they were done to signify a truce between two warring parties or to combine kingdoms, etc. Love was no where in the equation. So why not allow the same to happen t

[quote]An economy that is based around harming people is not a good thing, and does not provide a net benefit to society.[/quote] So what would you have all those people who depend(ed) on the tobacco industry for a job do? Would you rather they just walk the streets looking for handouts rather than fulfill a demand for a product? The net benefit is the number of jobs that the tobacco industry has created over the years. [quote]If research shows that there is a sign

[quote]Most importantly though there is a key benefit of cars that outweighs the (hopefully small) side effect this causes - they allow people to travel and transport from A to B far more efficiently, which provides huge boosts to trade and life in general. Smoking doesn't provide any such positive benefits though, since it harms both the user and those around. Still it is an example of a group of individuals being able to harm others without their consent.[/quote] This is just plain

[quote]How did this happen? The gov contracted out to big construction company XYZ. This company then sub-contracted to someone who then sub-sub contracted and so on, with everyone in between taking their share of dough only to pass on the work down the line. End result? The government paid a ridiculously massive amount of money for a small amount of work, and the guy actually doing the work was paid peaunuts while businessmen made a big chunk of money simply for passing the contract on witho

[quote]That BO would find it necessary to 'fear-monger' is deliciously ironic.[/quote] I definitely agree with you here.