CA's Prop 8, FL's amendment 2 and Arizona's prop 102/ Defining marriage, Surprised this never got mentioned here. Rating Options

[Blaqheartedstar]

Surprised this never got mentioned here. CA's Prop 8, FL's amendment 2 and Arizona's prop 102, and the whole defining gay marriage. With election coming up pretty soon, Prop 8 has been a big issue.

The argument is that Prop 8, amendment 2 and prop 102 will define that marriage between a man and a woman will be the only legal kind of marriage in California for prop 8, Florida for amendment 2, and Arizona with prop 102.

Some people argue that it has nothing to do with gay rights, or about gays in general
yet mention that if it doesn't pass parental rights, and religious freedom gets taken away.

Others mention that it does (take away gay rights), If the law passes Same sex couples will not be able to
1. Marry the person they love.
2. Those who are already married will lose the rights that come with it.


There is also the argument that Marriage is about love regardless of gender (Love is Blind).
yet others strongly believe that marriage is a religious, spiritual union between a man and a women.

To start a discussion here are several questions
1. what do you feel will happen if these laws passes and soon spreads to other states?
2. What do you feel marriage is, and should the idea of same sex marriage be allowed?
3. What do you think will happen to the children whose parents happen to be both male or female, If these laws passes what do you think will happen to the children?

[Blaqheartedstar]

^ great find. The issue has been out for some time. It was recently that i bumped into the problem and the responses for it.

I ranted about this issue, boy was i pissed for those looking for a quick laugh or something like that check out this post
it also covers what sparked this debate.

[amplifyy]

I say no on CA's Prop 8.
I believe that people can't just take away someone's rights just for some schools.
And you knows whats stupid? They just allowed gay marriage in California a while ago and NOW they are voting on it?

[Blaqheartedstar]

People really need to look up the new laws in the voting forum. They often word it to confuse people in to picking what they really want.

back on topic though.
what upset me was that one guy used the excuse that every child need a mother and a father and if same sex couples are allow to marry then it takes that away.
what about the children up for adoption? many don't get the chance to be adopted.
What about the children who lost a parent to a accident? a divorce?
so using that as an excuse means nothing.

[Joss-eh-lime]

yes on 8.

i believe in heterosexual couples being married.

[Blaqheartedstar]

Voting yes means that you approve of marriage being only between a man and a women. Thats what yes means.

this is exactly what i mean. It confuses people. Watch, people are going to end up putting yes thinking that its going to allow same sex couples to marry when really its not.

edit: read Joss-eh-lime's post wrong.

[*cakedout*]

mar⋅riage   [mar-ij] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.


they should make another word for gay marriages, like gay intertwining... lolol

[Blaqheartedstar]

Marriage
Marriage or wedlock is an interpersonal relationship (usually intimate and sexual) with governmental, social, or religious recognition. It is often created by a contract or through civil processes. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution.

Doesn't have to be between just a man and women.

[coconutter]

yes on 8.

i believe in heterosexual couples being married.

ummmm okay, you want heterosexual couples to be married, so? that has nothing to do with prop 8, since you never said you didn't want gay people to get married

and i think it's stupid, especially taking the rights of marriage away from the gays already married. how can you take someone's rights away solely based on their sexual orientation? that's the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard, taking away rights of people who've done NOTHING to anyone or anything

think about that, and think how it applies to issues such as abortion, which i'm sure if you support prop8 , you support anti abortion laws.

not only that think about human rights laws, this is ridiculous! even if you do believe people choose to be gay, people can choose to have red hair, and what if they took away the rights of people with red hair just because some overpowering religion deemed it unholy? how would you red haired people feel? most people would feel dehumanized, unwanted, and hated.

why are we dehumanizing people in our own country, equal in value to everyone else?

[Blaqheartedstar]

^ good point.
One guys argues that some how if prop 8 fails and same sex couples are allowed to marry then soon three people are going to want to marry each other or people are going to want to have the right to marry an animal.
you got to be kidding me.

[synatribe]

In my opinion I believe marriage started out as a religious tradition but as society changed it suddenly became a tradition. I believe in alternative lifestyles but in all honesty I dont see a place for government even in the idea of marriage. There is no reason the government should get involved. Also when I say alternative lifestyles I also mean that homosexuals can come up with their own tradition of a interconnecting ceremony between 2 souls. To me honestly, I dont even consider polygamy to be a marriage no matter what mormoms think

[coconutter]

The government should be involved in marriage because marriage gives two people certain rights boyfriend and girlfriend don't have. Although, to me marriage is really nothing but a legal binding of two, or maybe even three, people. It certainly doesn't make two people love each other, which I think is the reason gay marriage is taboo to others is because people are afraid gay people might love each other, but they don't realize they already do. When you don't allow people to get married, you're not stopping the people from loving each other, you're just not giving them the rights they deserve to have. Obviously when you give two people the right to marriage, it's not going to turn into "I want to marry my dog". No. In our society people are the ones to hold all the rights. Not animals, although I disagree, but that's another argument. Two or even three people should have the right to marriage if they wish to, because the point is you're not stopping them from loving each other, you really can't stop anyone from liking anything. You're just depriving them of rights every over human has based on what they like, and that's really stupid. Who cares if the bible says "marriage should be between a man and woman", the bible is not the constitution.

Why are we allowing people to do this? It's very hateful, it's like discriminating against a whole entire race. We're taking their rights away that they should lawfully have under the constitution, and why? Just because they happen to like the same sex. So what? People have been doing that for centuries, but it's in a society like this where different things should be allowed to happen. In history, they have. Like women's rights and black people's rights. But.. why are we taking away normal people's rights? Sounds really unjust when you think about it, doesn't it? No matter what religious background you have.

By the way, gay parents aren't bad. The children of gay people might have a way better life than they could have elsewhere, even with a heterosexual couple. I seriously doubt that living with two gay people will screw up someone's life, or make them gay themselves. Gay people don't intentionally make other people gay, if you like someone, you just like them and can you really help when you like other people? Gay people don't care about you non-gay people, they don't want you, you're not gay. You may think, but they call me hot! Well, people call Britney hot right now, but that doesn't mean they want her, after all who wants an STD bag? Stop thinking that. The children of gays will be just as corrupted as any other children.

[only-tuesdays]

In my opinion I believe marriage started out as a religious tradition but as society changed it suddenly became a tradition. I believe in alternative lifestyles but in all honesty I dont see a place for government even in the idea of marriage. There is no reason the government should get involved. Also when I say alternative lifestyles I also mean that homosexuals can come up with their own tradition of a interconnecting ceremony between 2 souls. To me honestly, I dont even consider polygamy to be a marriage no matter what mormoms think

Exactly. What happened to church being apart from gov't?

[brooklyneast05]

^if you don't see a place for government in marriage then...sorry but i don't think you even understand marriage or what comes along with it anyway. it's not just a little promise between you and someone, it's a legal binding.

marital status determines a lot of technical things that have nothing to do with love or religion or any of that. you know like, home insurance, auto insurance, health insurance, inheritance, social security, medicare, pension, tons of discounts on basically everything from home loans to joint tax returns....like 299329323 benefits


marriage is more about legal things than anything else imo. when i get married it will be because of the benefits, not becuase i think i need someones approval/recognition to love someone. ofcourse, i'm also not religious so i don't give a shit about any of that union between me, my wife, and the sky fairy stuff.

anway, you can't get these things without being recognized by the govt as married. you can love someone all you want without govt recognition. government is going to be involved in marriage regardless, because it makes sense for them to be from a legal perspective. married couples should be treated differently than independents.

but yeah, homosexual couples who are together on the same long term basis should have the same benefits as a heterosexual couple.

[only-tuesdays]

I understand the legalities of marriage. But I don't believe anyone has a right to sit there and define marriage as only being between a man and a woman. The belief that marriage is between only one man and one woman stems from religious belief, not law.

[sixfive]

I say who the f**k cares what gay people do, so long as their gay behavior doesn't infringe on the rights of others. Let them be f*gs about it.

[synatribe]

^if you don't see a place for government in marriage then...sorry but i don't think you even understand marriage or what comes along with it anyway. it's not just a little promise between you and someone, it's a legal binding.

marital status determines a lot of technical things that have nothing to do with love or religion or any of that. you know like, home insurance, auto insurance, health insurance, inheritance, social security, medicare, pension, tons of discounts on basically everything from home loans to joint tax returns....like 299329323 benefits
marriage is more about legal things than anything else imo. when i get married it will be because of the benefits, not becuase i think i need someones approval/recognition to love someone. ofcourse, i'm also not religious so i don't give a shit about any of that union between me, my wife, and the sky fairy stuff.

anway, you can't get these things without being recognized by the govt as married. you can love someone all you want without govt recognition. government is going to be involved in marriage regardless, because it makes sense for them to be from a legal perspective. married couples should be treated differently than independents.

but yeah, homosexual couples who are together on the same long term basis should have the same benefits as a heterosexual couple.

I actually do know. I also know that gay couples have to pay $5000 for insurance compared to $80 (in general terms) for a married couple. Thats why I recommended alternative lifestyles with benefits of regular marriages cause if anyone opposes that then their stupid.

[Joss-eh-lime]

Does my public school teach me about the creation of the world by God's design or evolution? Evolution. Who even has a say about it? No one. In the same way, why should marraige be taught in such a liberal way, when the creation of earth itself is not?

I don't want MY little brother going on a field trip to a gay marraige. I don't want MY little brother being exposed to contraversial things as a young kid. I don't believe in gay marriage because I believe that those relationships are a sin in God's eyes. That is exactly what the Bible says.

Why does everyone INSIST upon going against nature?

[only-tuesdays]

Because unfortunately this is not a country where one person's religion can so completely be shoved down someone else's throat. We have a thing called seperation of church and state. Do people normally go to a wedding as a field trip? I've never heard of such things. The simple answer to your problem is send your children to a private school. But then they're going to come out into society and realize they've been sheltered from an entire world.

[AyeVickaye]

Damns the gov. should let people marry who they want to marry shizz. How would you feel if you couldn't marry the person you love? gay people are nice anyways. they don't do anything to us...

[coconutter]

^if you don't see a place for government in marriage then...sorry but i don't think you even understand marriage or what comes along with it anyway. it's not just a little promise between you and someone, it's a legal binding.

EXACTLY! Why deprive the rights of people based on what they like, it's stupid stupid stupid.

Does my public school teach me about the creation of the world by God's design or evolution? Evolution. Who even has a say about it? No one. In the same way, why should marriage be taught in such a liberal way, when the creation of earth itself is not?

I don't want MY little brother going on a field trip to a gay marraige. I don't want MY little brother being exposed to contraversial things as a young kid. I don't believe in gay marriage because I believe that those relationships are a sin in God's eyes. That is exactly what the Bible says.

Why does everyone INSIST upon going against nature?

Uhh, marriage isn't being taught, and nor do schools go on field trips to heterosexual or homosexual marriages, what are you talking about? Also, that is how you believe the earth is created, not everyone else. I also don't believe your little brother will be exposed to any homosexuality at a young age because, they don't go on field trips to gay marriages, and I doubt 4th grade boys are mauling on each other. Your last statement in the first paragraph made no sense at all, and they definitely don't TEACH marriages in school, and gay marriages aren't being looked at in a liberal way, they're being looked at in a way that's more like "are we really treating people unfairly because they're gay"? I don't think God said you should not like gays or not allow them to get married (because first of all marriage has nothing to do with love), and I also believe he did say he loves everyone equally and that we should be nice to others. Is hating other people, and also coming up with ridiculous reasons to hate others that don't exist, is that really what your God wants? I don't think so. I think you need to read The Bible a few more times to understand it.

Also, where EXACTLY in The Bible does it say "gay marriage is a sin in God's eyes and you should not believe in them" where? I don't think you can answer that straight forward. Also, read the posts, they'll start to make a lot of sense.

[Reidar]

Does my public school teach me about the creation of the world by God's design or evolution? Evolution. Who even has a say about it? No one. In the same way, why should marraige be taught in such a liberal way, when the creation of earth itself is not?

Creationism isn't taught alternatively because it has no scientific basis. Gay marriage is not so concise.

I wouldn't want my kid (my very hypothetical kid existing in another dimension) to attend a gay wedding, but I wouldn't want him to be at a straight one, either. Seriously, what kind of a lame field trip is a wedding? Field trips are supposed to be badass, like going to dinosaur museums and nuclear power plants.

[fameONE]

Does my public school teach me about the creation of the world by God's design or evolution? Evolution. Who even has a say about it? No one. In the same way, why should marraige be taught in such a liberal way, when the creation of earth itself is not?

I don't want MY little brother going on a field trip to a gay marraige. I don't want MY little brother being exposed to contraversial things as a young kid. I don't believe in gay marriage because I believe that those relationships are a sin in God's eyes. That is exactly what the Bible says.

Why does everyone INSIST upon going against nature?

You're not going to win this argument. Your ability to debate this issue is immensely flawed due to your personal beliefs. If you have your own reservations about same-sex partnerships, that's fine, and no one is going to shit on you about that. However, when you state your opinion, then shit on everyone else with such a self-righteous attitude, you leave yourself open to the backlash of those who posess the ability to think reasonably.

You say that same-sex partnerships are wrong, and that you don't agree with it due to your religious beliefs, but you provide no support to your opinions. In the end, you look like the ignorant douche. YOU become the prime example of 'what's wrong in America' because of that fact that you'd ignore human rights just to satisfy your religious beliefs.

Like I said, there's nothing wrong with you holding an opposing stance, just present an argument that doesn't make you look like a fool. Would I want my child to be fed anything that merely suggests being a homosexual? Of course not. At the same time, I don't want my child using religion as an excuse to be ignorant. The biblical definition of marriage, unfortunately, is as flawed as your supporting argument, because the benefits involved with actually being married are beneficial to both parties involved.

So take a moment, gather your thoughts, do some research, and come back to this with an open mind and an unbiased stance; then make an attempt to tie in your beliefs.

[sixfive]

José Limo.

Imo, to Christians, the Bible should not be absolute, rather a guideline. Strict interpretation of anything of that size can only lead to hypocrisy. I bet you don't follow everything the Bible says strictly. Hypocritical bitch.

[Joss-eh-lime]

so what if my beliefs contratict yours? i can still think logically about this.

everytime someone a bit more conservative than you guys posts their ideas you all flock together and peck out their eyes because "Oh no! How dare she be against gay marriage?!"

what you all want to hear is vote no on 8!

[brooklyneast05]

^no it's becuase you don't give any real reason why it's wrong other than that your religion doesn't agree. the simple fact someones religion doesn't agree isn't something that convinces very many people in arguments/debates.


i wouldn't say that repeating what a church told you is "thinking logically". i don't think repeating requires any thinking at all.

[only-tuesdays]

Using your personal beliefs isn't an argument at all. You can be as conservative as you want, you can use the Bible as the basis of your argument. If you provide some scripture, even better. But you have to understand, that you can't possibly force your personal religion on everyone else. Just because you believe it doesn't mean everyone else should be bound by it. Everyone's interpretation of the Bible tends to be different.

As far as the religious beliefs are concerned here are the quotes usually used against homosexuality.

-- Leviticus 18:22: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination" (NKJV). Leviticus 20:13: "If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

Now, I was taught that while the Old Testament is an important aspect of the Bible, we are not bound by it's law. This was before Christ died on the cross for our sins. When Christ sacrificed himself, he put us back on level with God. We no longer need to sacrifice an animal to atone for our sins. At the same time, every sin is the same amount of sin. You are no better for lying than someone who committed murder. Everyone is a sinner, and everyone's sin is the same. The worst thing is when Christians forget that. No one here on earth is in the position to judge another person's sin. The only being who is in that position is God himself.

Of course, none of that matters unless you believe it. ;-)

[*cakedout*]

Doesn't have to be between just a man and women.

that depends who you ask, dont jump to conclusions

[coconutter]

so what if my beliefs contratict yours? i can still think logically about this.

everytime someone a bit more conservative than you guys posts their ideas you all flock together and peck out their eyes because "Oh no! How dare she be against gay marriage?!"

what you all want to hear is vote no on 8!

No, we're pecking out your eyes because you have no legitimate reasons to hate other people. Some of your reasons don't even exist. I really don't think you're reading the posts. You can disagree but you really should have a good reason to disagree and not made up reasons.


By the way, that verse could mean that two homosexual couples shouldn't have sex with each other, and just because two people are married doesn't mean they have sex. It's actually more likely for a boyfriend and girlfriend to be sexually active. I do believe "lying with someone of the same sex" refers to having sex with, not marrying.

[Reidar]

As anti-theistic as I am, Joss-eh-lime didn't say anything about hate, so that's a straw man. Do you think that Barack Obama hates homosexuals because he doesn't support gay marriage? You can consider it faith-based tunnel vision if you'd like, but not active vitriol.

[dosomethin888]

This is a tricky one for me. Would I vote for Prop 8? Yes. Is it a bit tougher saying why on these forums? Yes.

I am a conservative person and Im getting distraught over how liberal this country is becoming: Gay Marriage, Abortion (Partial Birth Abortion which is murder, no way to deny that), legalizing prostitution, the amount of sex, drugs, nudity and language available to young children, taking away our 2nd ammendment right... It is deteriorating our society morally from within.

Homosexuals are SO loud. I think the percentage of homosexuals in the US is like, what, 8% and somehow with so few of them, we are debating gay marriage? With how loud they are and how liberal they are in their views, once gay marriage is legalized, they are going to be wanting more. Like taking children on a field trip to see a homosexual wedding. Thats wrong. And introducing a book in elementary school about two Princes falling in love. Thats wrong.
But these people doing these things.. obviously dont see this behavior as wrong. Just like brainwashing your kids to sing "I love (enter presidential candidate's name here)!" Brainwashing children at all is wrong. I say teach EVOLUTION and CREATIONISM in school. Ya, creationism has no scientific basis but there is overwhelming evidence that the Bible is accurate on more than one account and evolution has enough freakin holes in it. So.. options, options, options.

I guess the main reason I am against gay marriage is because it opens the doors to more morally void things to be pushed into this society. What happens when you take morals out of a society? It crumbles. Well, at least I think so.

[Reidar]

There is no evidence to the favor of Biblical events that puts it on the same plane as the fact of evolution. That's the point of religion being based on faith.

By the way, not all gays are liberal.

[dosomethin888]

There is no evidence to the favor of Biblical events that puts it on the same plane as the fact of evolution. That's the point of religion being based on faith.

By the way, not all gays are liberal.

Ya, your right about that. Ive actually met some gay christians, which I think ARE christians.

But, some gays are liberal and those some are loud.

[brooklyneast05]

Homosexuals are SO loud. I think the percentage of homosexuals in the US is like, what, 8% and somehow with so few of them, we are debating gay marriage?

lol people shouldn't have rights unless there are a majority of them?

[only-tuesdays]

Ya, your right about that. Ive actually met some gay christians, which I think ARE christians.

But, some gays are liberal and those some are loud.

Wait, so conservative is the same as Christian and if you're liberal you're not Christian? Umm...no.

[dosomethin888]

Wait, so conservative is the same as Christian and if you're liberal you're not Christian? Umm...no.

Dude, you just pulled all of that out of your ass. How about if your going to attack me.. reply to something I actually said.

lol people shouldn't have rights unless there are a majority of them?

Ya, I didnt say that they shouldnt have rights.

[brooklyneast05]

Ya, I didnt say that they shouldnt have rights.

how? you asked why we're even debating about gay marriage, and we are debating about gay marriage because gay people want marriage rights.

[Blaqheartedstar]

that depends who you ask, dont jump to conclusions

no one is.

[dilligrout]

^ good point.
One guys argues that some how if prop 8 fails and same sex couples are allowed to marry then soon three people are going to want to marry each other or people are going to want to have the right to marry an animal.
you got to be kidding me.

That makes it sound like gays are animals =(
I hate idiots. This country dissapoints me.

[only-tuesdays]

Homosexuals are SO loud. I think the percentage of homosexuals in the US is like, what, 8% and somehow with so few of them, we are debating gay marriage? With how loud they are and how liberal they are in their views, once gay marriage is legalized, they are going to be wanting more.

By the way, not all gays are liberal.

Ya, your right about that. Ive actually met some gay christians, which I think ARE christians.

But, some gays are liberal and those some are loud.

Dude, you just pulled all of that out of your ass. How about if your going to attack me.. reply to something I actually said.

I didn't pull it out of my ass. From reading what you said it sure seemed like that was your train of thought since homosexual liberals are so devoid of morals as you've said.

[Blaqheartedstar]

Does my public school teach me about the creation of the world by God's design or evolution? Evolution. Who even has a say about it? No one. In the same way, why should marriage be taught in such a liberal way, when the creation of earth itself is not?

I don't want MY little brother going on a field trip to a gay marriage. I don't want MY little brother being exposed to controversial things as a young kid. I don't believe in gay marriage because I believe that those relationships are a sin in God's eyes. That is exactly what the Bible says.

Why does everyone INSIST upon going against nature?

Whether you like it or not, they are going to know eventually on the problems that this nation faces and its up to them to help fix the problems that we often cause.

as for "everyone" insisting we go against nature, its natural to love someone, just some people happen to LOVE someone of the same sex, they can't help that.

[dosomethin888]

I didn't pull it out of my ass. From reading what you said it sure seemed like that was your train of thought since homosexual liberals are so devoid of morals as you've said.

Well, okay. Its not my place to decide whether someone is a Christian or not. That would be hypocritical of me. But a lot of things that liberals stand for are against the Bible, like gay marriage and abortion. Im not speaking for all homosexuals, but some. Most liberals get pissed off when someone stands for something based on the fact that they believe in God and strive to live according to the Bible.

how? you asked why we're even debating about gay marriage, and we are debating about gay marriage because gay people want marriage rights.

I said with so few homosexuals there are in this country, the fact that we are in such a hustle over gay marriage being legalized only points out that homosexuals are loud. They are freely expressing their right to free speech, I didnt bash them for it. I just explained that they are, in fact, LOUD.

[Joss-eh-lime]

^no it's becuase you don't give any real reason why it's wrong other than that your religion doesn't agree. the simple fact someones religion doesn't agree isn't something that convinces very many people in arguments/debates.
i wouldn't say that repeating what a church told you is "thinking logically". i don't think repeating requires any thinking at all.

what you call repeating is what i call my personal beliefs. isnt that what a debate is? its your opinion. its what you think. so i dont have statistical data to back up my belief. its still what i think.

& about gays having rights, they still do. civil unions. hello!

and another thing is that a few people I have heard on the radio and on websites have actually compared being gay in America to being black and that is absolutely ridiculous. a person is BORN black never gay.

[only-tuesdays]

^Actually there has been some research that suggests people are in fact born gay.

[Joss-eh-lime]

^oh rly? well i'll wait around untill they PROVE it thoroughly, then prove it again.

[brooklyneast05]

^oh rly? well i'll wait around untill they PROVE it thoroughly, then prove it again.

just like you did for your religion right

[only-tuesdays]

^oh rly? well i'll wait around untill they PROVE it thoroughly, then prove it again.

Yes, really. As a matter of fact, if you do your research you'll find that America is one of the few countries in the world to go all crazy over GLTB. They've done research in Europe on cadavers that suggests that there is an area of the brain that actually develops differently as a fetus in homosexual people. I'd get the specifics for you, but it's 1AM and I don't feel like digging through my class notes right now. So maybe later.

As a sidenote, this isn't really turning into much of a debate since it's pretty obvious people aren't looking back and reading what is being said, then commenting.

[Joss-eh-lime]

mmk JC, cuz it was really that funny...


of course people want to try and rationalize being gay as being a natural thing, even though 25 years ago being gay was in the text books as deviant behavior. i have a first hand source on that because my mother studied psychiatric medicine.

i dont understand how come gay people want so many "rights" or whatever, when their lifestyle is just that- a lifestyle. a behavior, a personality trait.

[brooklyneast05]

yeah just because something is in a text book doesn't make it fact. that's why there are so many editions of them, you know, becuase we advance and their information becomes outdated...i have no clue where you're going with a 25 year old text book.

[Blaqheartedstar]

ditto

i dont understand how come gay people want so many "rights" or whatever, when their lifestyle is just that- a lifestyle. a behavior, a personality trait.

If your rights as a human being was taken away because your a female wouldn't you fight for it?
the rights of people who are homosexual are taken away or violated because of who they decide to sleep with.

they can't change the fact that they are gay. Just like the women who fought for their rights, they just so happen to not have a penis and men felt they didn't need to work, or have the rights that they did.

African Americans wanted more rights, women wanted more rights, now gays do. They all obviously felt that because of who they were the rights they deserve weren't given to them.

[Joss-eh-lime]

^this is what i had said:

and another thing is that a few people I have heard on the radio and on websites have actually compared being gay in America to being black and that is absolutely ridiculous. a person is BORN black never gay.

comparing being female to being gay is NOT rational.
comparing being black to being gay is ridiculous.

gay people sleep with the same sex. big whoop.
what happens when a bunch of people decide "well i love THREE people. so i want to marry them all. the government takes way my rights if i cant marry all three of my lovers!"

[Blaqheartedstar]

I used them as a example, being gay is as NATURAL as being a women, man, hispanic, african american, asian and so on. If rights were taken away because of who they are people would fight for it.

[*paperplane*]

Does my public school teach me about the creation of the world by God's design or evolution? Evolution. Who even has a say about it? No one. In the same way, why should marraige be taught in such a liberal way, when the creation of earth itself is not?

I don't want MY little brother going on a field trip to a gay marraige. I don't want MY little brother being exposed to contraversial things as a young kid. I don't believe in gay marriage because I believe that those relationships are a sin in God's eyes. That is exactly what the Bible says.

Why does everyone INSIST upon going against nature?

The first part doesn't make sense. And why in the hell would anyone go on a field trip to a gay marriage? Why would any wedding be a field trip? Talk about pulling things out of your ass. That is not exactly what the bible says, because you couldn't even be bothered to quote the bible. But I challenge you to do so.

Bible =/= nature. Not even a little.

and another thing is that a few people I have heard on the radio and on websites have actually compared being gay in America to being black and that is absolutely ridiculous. a person is BORN black never gay.

Most studies disagree with you.


Ummm I typed responses to more posts, but I lost them...and this is all I was willing to redo.

I will say, though, that the reason "liberals" take issue with people who base their opinions off a literal interpretation of the bible is that a lot of us have no reason to care what it says. The law does not either, given the separation of church and state. I actually think that marriage as a religious ceremony needs to be completely separated from its legal ramifications. Every couple that wishes to be united should get a civil union, and then those who are religious can get an actual marriage if they so choose. But to prevent devoted partners from getting visitation rights at the hospital (or anything along those lines) because they are not legally related is wrong. Social conservatism may stall progress, but it will ultimately lose. Abstract morals change over time, so it's utterly ridiculous to say that something is wrong now because people thought it was any amount of years ago.
Polygamy actually used to be common place. But also it used to be acceptable to stone women to death for getting married out of wedlock. Profanity may be a lot more prevalent on tv now, but oral sex between two consenting adults used to be banned by sodomy laws. So I guess you can attempt to make the argument that compromising out morality is destroying society, but personally I'd prefer to take that risk and have as much freedom as possible.

[Blaqheartedstar]

The first part doesn't make sense. And why in the hell would anyone go on a field trip to a gay marriage? Why would any wedding be a field trip? Talk about pulling things out of your ass. That is not exactly what the bible says, because you couldn't even be bothered to quote the bible. But I challenge you to do so.

Bible =/= nature. Not even a little.

^ nicely put. Religion shouldn't even be taught in public schools. So a field trip to any marriage ceremony wouldn't even be a thought.

i also agree that Joss-eh-lime is quick to say its against the bible yet fails to quote any of it.

I will say, though, that the reason "liberals" take issue with people who base their opinions off a literal interpretation of the bible is that a lot of us have no reason to care what it says. The law does not either, given the separation of church and state. I actually think that marriage as a religious ceremony needs to be completely separated from its legal ramifications. Every couple that wishes to be united should get a civil union, and then those who are religious can get an actual marriage if they so choose. But to prevent devoted partners from getting visitation rights at the hospital (or anything along those lines) because they are not legally related is wrong. Social conservatism may stall progress, but it will ultimately lose. Abstract morals change over time, so it's utterly ridiculous to say that something is wrong now because people thought it was any amount of years ago.

^ amazing. Exactly what i was thinking. Makes complete sense.

[brooklyneast05]

prob because quoting from the old testament will screw you over really quick when you realize that you don't abide by any of the laws that surround that gay line

[Reidar]

Religion shouldn't even be taught in public schools. So a field trip to any marriage ceremony wouldn't even be a thought.

She was making reference to this.

[*paperplane*]

Parents can excuse their child from all or part of the instruction.

I think that's the only part of that article that actually matters.

[Reidar]

Not really, because the original premise was Joss-eh-lime conjuring it up out of nowhere. It's a given that any field trip will give parents leeway to opt their child out, so it's not as if either you or Blaqheartedstar had to wait for a link to make that a point; rather, you derided the chances of it happening in the first place.

comparing being female to being gay is NOT rational.
comparing being black to being gay is ridiculous.

Even if you want to believe that sexuality isn't genetically encapsulated, few would argue that your biological inclinations are a conscious choice anymore than gender or race.

[*paperplane*]

Because by not providing a link, or ever directly referencing it, we had no reason to think it was an issue. But of course, it's not an issue because her little brother or any other child would not have to go to anything the parents disagree with. Also, she made it sound like they'd be taken for educational purposes, which that didn't really sound like it was. However, if those children learned that all people are entitled to a happy marriage, then I wouldn't consider that problematic either.

[dosomethin888]

It doesnt matter if a parent can "opt out" of having their child attending a field trip, I dont want my child even having the opportunity to go. A field trip to a wedding, let alone a gay wedding, is ridiculous.
Not to mention, some parents arent even notified accurately.

Having the audacity to even suggest a wedding as a field trip takes a lot of balls.. just like having the audacity to ask a group of children to sing a song dedicated to a presidential candidate.

I used them as a example, being gay is as NATURAL as being a women, man, hispanic, african american, asian and so on. If rights were taken away because of who they are people would fight for it.

There is no way you can prove that being gay is natural.. there are as many holes in the "gay gene" theory as there is in the evolution theory.

Because by not providing a link, or ever directly referencing it, we had no reason to think it was an issue.

Its called google.

[*paperplane*]

Google a seemingly baseless offhand comment? Yeah...so if I say I don't want my sisters to be eaten by dinosaurs on a field trip, are you going to google it to see whether that's ever happened before?

I don't think marriages are an appropriate field trip either. At all. But it's stupid to say you don't want an option to be available when you can say no to it. Schools are legally obligated to notify parents about field trips, so if they don't bother to thoroughly read the permission slips, that's no one's problem but their own. It's utterly hypocritical how people whine about children being "brainwashed" in public schools when the same people would happily put their children in private ones where they can be fed Christian ideology without the government oversight.

[dosomethin888]

Google a seemingly baseless offhand comment? Yeah...so if I say I don't want my sisters to be eaten by dinosaurs on a field trip, are you going to google it to see whether that's ever happened before?

I don't think marriages are an appropriate field trip either. At all. But it's stupid to say you don't want an option to be available when you can say no to it. Schools are legally obligated to notify parents about field trips, so if they don't bother to thoroughly read the permission slips, that's no one's problem but their own. It's utterly hypocritical how people whine about children being "brainwashed" in public schools when the same people would happily put their children in private ones where they can be fed Christian ideology without the government oversight.

Yes, yes I would.

No, I was joking about the whole google thing

Ya, except that private schools are expensive and you know that. Some parents who would love to take their child out of the slowly deteriorating public school system just cant afford it. Thats not even a logical argument.

[Blaqheartedstar]

off topic but check this out
http://grove.ufl.edu/~ggsa/pdf_docs/gaymarriage.pdf
12 reasons why gay marriage would ruin society
^ a joke, but makes total sense.
also brings up the argument many try to pull off that children need a mother and a father, and same sex marriages can't provide that.
They can't use that as a excuse when the divorce rate is climbing higher and higher each year.

[TiffanyFactorial]

We don't learn about marriage in public schools and we wouldn't learn about gay marriage either. Massachusetts is different than California. Our state constitutions are different. Look up the constitution yourself.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 9 EDUCATION


SEC. 8. No public money shall ever be appropriated for the support
of any sectarian or denominational school, or any school not under
the exclusive control of the officers of the public schools; nor
shall any sectarian or denominational doctrine be taught, or
instruction thereon be permitted, directly or indirectly, in any of
the common schools of this State.

i like that people make it seem like they're trying to protect their future generations from "gay marriage" as if it's some sort of disease. look, it's not a choice, they're born gay & whether you like it or not, it's a reality. we don't live in a friggin utopia, wake up. there's a genocide going in darfur, the holocaust happened, there are homeless people, oh & MY GOD there are people who are gay. your kids & your little brother are going to learn about it EVENTUALLY.

Gays marrying each other cannot be compared to incest or 3 people marrying each other.

[Blaqheartedstar]

exactly. People are all like i don't want my child to learn about it. If you prohibit your child from watching tv. They learn about it at school, from their friends, the internet. its everywhere.

[dosomethin888]

exactly. People are all like i don't want my child to learn about it. If you prohibit your child from watching tv. They learn about it at school, from their friends, the internet. its everywhere.

That is why the family as a whole is extremely important. I dont care whether a child is raised by a man and a woman or a man and a man. (I would prefer the first.). But, take away the family and problems occur.

Children need to be raised by a loving, discipling family. Not 16-year-olds fresh out of high school. The parents need to moniter what the child sees and communicate with their child.

Proverbs 22:6
"Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it."

[*paperplane*]

Yes, yes I would.

No, I was joking about the whole google thing

Ya, except that private schools are expensive and you know that. Some parents who would love to take their child out of the slowly deteriorating public school system just cant afford it. Thats not even a logical argument.

Yeah, but that wasn't really the point. I meant that regardless children are going to run the risk of being exposed to different ideas. And I fail to see how it's worse to suggest that they be shown that there are opposing viewpoints than to be told that there is only one thing they are allowed to believe, as with many people's interpretations of Christianity.

Brainwashing children at all is wrong.

But you seem to be suggesting that only "liberal" brainwashing is wrong, while it's perfectly fine to push Christian ideology.

[Joss-eh-lime]

The first part doesn't make sense. And why in the hell would anyone go on a field trip to a gay marriage? Why would any wedding be a field trip? Talk about pulling things out of your ass. That is not exactly what the bible says, because you couldn't even be bothered to quote the bible. But I challenge you to do so.

Bible =/= nature. Not even a little.
Most studies disagree with you.
Ummm I typed responses to more posts, but I lost them...and this is all I was willing to redo.

its cute how you think the field trip thing was made up.

the article

gay marriage has already infiltrated schools, and its popularity will grow, no matter what happens with this particular vote. however, i would like to try and attempt to stop its growth therefore i am supporting Prop 8

[only-tuesdays]

Private schools are expensive, but they also offer scholarships. And if that isn't an option there is a such thing as homeschooling. Though, I don't agree with homeschooling if it's simply to guard the child from the real world. When they grow up, or realize you've been lying to them their entire lives, they're likely to resent you for it. I do agree that children need to be raised in a healthy environment, but I don't think that it has to be a heterosexual couple.

Polygamy cannot be compared to homosexuality at all. It is a completely different subject, with it's own issues. That is a ridiculous comparison.

[dosomethin888]

Yeah, but that wasn't really the point. I meant that regardless children are going to run the risk of being exposed to different ideas. And I fail to see how it's worse to suggest that they be shown that there are opposing viewpoints than to be told that there is only one thing they are allowed to believe, as with many people's interpretations of Christianity.

No, because school is not the place to be teaching these children "opposing viewpoints." Yes, the children may learn about them through other students. But the public school's only job is to supply education to these students. Thats why I think creationism, along with evolution should be taught. Or take that aspect out of science being taught at school away completely.

But, if parents belive that "there is only one thing" that their children are allowed to believe, and they have the money(.... or a scholarship i guess), then feel free to send your child to a Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Scientology, or Wiccan school. Its how you wish to raise your child. Whatev.

But as for public school, it is just education. No swaying.

But you seem to be suggesting that only "liberal" brainwashing is wrong, while it's perfectly fine to push Christian ideology.

Ya, your right. It just kind of unnerves me when these people have these children singing a song to a man that is in favor of leaving babies on tables to die just in order to keep abortion laws from becoming under attack.

[Blaqheartedstar]

its cute how you think the field trip thing was made up.

the article

gay marriage has already infiltrated schools, and its popularity will grow, no matter what happens with this particular vote. however, i would like to try and attempt to stop its growth therefore i am supporting Prop 8

it was already brought up. HERE

Also do you honestly believe that prop 8 would already stop gay marriages from entering schools if it already has? what are they going to do punish the children who bring it up?

[*paperplane*]

its cute how you think the field trip thing was made up.

the article

gay marriage has already infiltrated schools, and its popularity will grow, no matter what happens with this particular vote. however, i would like to try and attempt to stop its growth therefore i am supporting Prop 8

Been there, covered that. Try reading posts?

Infiltrated schools? Popularity will grow? It's not a f**king disease or a trend, loon.

No, because school is not the place to be teaching these children "opposing viewpoints." Yes, the children may learn about them through other students. But the public school's only job is to supply education to these students. Thats why I think creationism, along with evolution should be taught. Or take that aspect out of science being taught at school away completely.

But, if parents belive that "there is only one thing" that their children are allowed to believe, and they have the money(.... or a scholarship i guess), then feel free to send your child to a Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Scientology, or Wiccan school. Its how you wish to raise your child. Whatev.

But as for public school, it is just education. No swaying.
Ya, your right. It just kind of unnerves me when these people have these children singing a song to a man that is in favor of leaving babies on tables to die just in order to keep abortion laws from becoming under attack.

By suggesting that they teach both evolution and creationism (which there is no scientific basis for), you're supporting the teaching of opposing viewpoints.

By not banning gay marriage, education is not swayed.

As for whatever you're referring to with kids singing for Obama, the issue not that they're singing for a candidate with particular views, it's that they're singing for a candidate at all.

[Joss-eh-lime]

blackheartedstar; i said stops its growth. not erase it completely. and like i said i know that prop 8 won't stop anyone from talking about gay marriage, but i still dont support it!

[dosomethin888]

By suggesting that they teach both evolution and creationism (which there is no scientific basis for), you're supporting the teaching of opposing viewpoints.

By not banning gay marriage, education is not swayed.

As for whatever you're referring to with kids singing for Obama, the issue not that they're singing for a candidate with particular views, it's that they're singing for a candidate at all.

Ya, and you are so sure that evolution is so much more stable? There are so many freakin holes in it. Just cause you are against Christianity and the theory of Creationism, you dont have to cling on to evolution like its pure fact. Its not.

Well, as for me supporting that opposing viewpoints (creationism vs. evolution) in school, I would much rather have that than only teaching one theory. Or, like I said, take that aspect out of school completely.

[*paperplane*]

Not at all, and this is why I avoid debates about evolution/creationism/whatever, because it all sounds like shit to me. But I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense to teach something in science class that has no scientific basis.

I don't think it's an aspect you can take out of school, though. Kids are going to wonder how we came to be, and there needs to be at least a tentative answer. If you want creationism included in that answer, send your kids to Sunday school.

[Reidar]

Because by not providing a link, or ever directly referencing it, we had no reason to think it was an issue. But of course, it's not an issue because her little brother or any other child would not have to go to anything the parents disagree with. Also, she made it sound like they'd be taken for educational purposes, which that didn't really sound like it was.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It'd be one thing to say, "I've never even heard of this", but actually making an argument based off of the premise that no such instance exists is a presumptive fallacy.

"And why in the hell would anyone go on a field trip to a gay marriage? Why would any wedding be a field trip?" declines to object in its complicity. You're accepting her premise of it somehow being a corruptible moment, but that it would never happen to begin with. Only after an example was shown did you say, "Actually, what's wrong with that in the first place?"

Also, it was described as "a teachable moment." The parameters that it was permitted under were to "teach respect for marriage and committed relationships."

Ya, except that private schools are expensive and you know that. Some parents who would love to take their child out of the slowly deteriorating public school system just cant afford it. Thats not even a logical argument.

Except that's what she said: they would do that, in order to illustrate how it doesn't make sense to chalk up secular issues like this as "brainwashing" when young children are systematically indoctrinated to believe in something they don't even understand under religious exaction. "Would" is conditional.

Just cause you are against Christianity and the theory of Creationism, you dont have to cling on to evolution like its pure fact. Its not.

Yes. Yes, it is.

[dosomethin888]

Not at all, and this is why I avoid debates about evolution/creationism/whatever, because it all sounds like shit to me. But I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense to teach something in science class that has no scientific basis.

I don't think it's an aspect you can take out of school, though. Kids are going to wonder how we came to be, and there needs to be at least a tentative answer. If you want creationism included in that answer, send your kids to Sunday school.

Well, I just disagree with the fact that there is, in fact, two sides to the argument. Creationism and Evolution. Sure, there is no "scientific basis" for creationism because it is not a scientific theory. Evolution is, therefore it is going to have plenty of "scientific basis." But it also has many, many holes in it and connections that cant seem to be made.
There are archeological findings that prove that the Bible is accurate on more than one account. And since the Bible is the basis of the Creationism theory, I think that is considered to be evidence enough.

But, I dont like how only evolution is taught when there is clearly an alternative... Its biased. Its not giving the children in the schools a chance to make a decision for themselves. Just imagine if only creationism was taught... how unfair would that be?

Yes. Yes, it is.

Enlighten me, please.

Except that's what she said: they would do that, in order to illustrate how it doesn't make sense to chalk up secular issues like this as "brainwashing" when young children are systematically indoctrinated to believe in something they don't even understand under religious exaction. "Would" is conditional.

We're over the brainwashing thing. I said I was wrong. *sniff*

[Joss-eh-lime]

do something: your final point about creationism is what i had said earlier.
i agree with you

[dosomethin888]

do something: your final point about creationism is what i had said earlier.
i agree with you

Thank you.

[Reidar]

But it also has many, many holes in it and connections that cant seem to be made.

This is a given in any scientific subject. The role of science is to patch these holes as more information comes to fruition through research and evidence-based piecing.

Enlighten me, please.

We not only have systematic alterations through consecutively-occurring instances of time in the fossil record, but we have physically observed evolution on the microbial level, such as the development of antibiotic resistances in bacteria.

We're over the brainwashing thing. I said I was wrong. *sniff*

I actually agree with you on the point of those kids singing praise to Barack Obama. That's why I liken teaching religion to young children who don't understand what it is that they're believing to indoctrinating them under a certain political belief.

[Blaqheartedstar]

blackheartedstar; i said stops its growth. not erase it completely. and like i said i know that prop 8 won't stop anyone from talking about gay marriage, but i still dont support it!

its BLAQ
anyway how can it stop its growth? you honestly believe that children are going to come home and be like
"hey mom i learned that i can marry a boy/girl"

just because that class surprised their teacher at her wedding its not like the school has planned the trip as part of their curriculum. No school will.

[dosomethin888]

This is a given in any scientific subject. The role of science is to patch these holes as more information comes to fruition through research and evidence-based piecing.

But, we havent reached that level yet, have we? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

We not only have systematic alterations through consecutively-occurring instances of time in the fossil record, but we have physically observed evolution on the microbial level, such as the development of antibiotic resistances in bacteria.

You dont have to try to impress me with your big words. I barely understood anything you just said.

So, its a complex theory.. still has holes and cant be connected at certain places.

I actually agree with you on the point of those kids singing praise to Barack Obama. That's why I liken teaching religion to young children who don't understand what it is that they're believing to indoctrinating them under a certain political belief.

A rational person, thank you.

[*paperplane*]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It'd be one thing to say, "I've never even heard of this", but actually making an argument based off of the premise that no such instance exists is a presumptive fallacy.

"And why in the hell would anyone go on a field trip to a gay marriage? Why would any wedding be a field trip?" declines to object in its complicity. You're accepting her premise of it somehow being a corruptible moment, but that it would never happen to begin with. Only after an example was shown did you say, "Actually, what's wrong with that in the first place?"

Also, it was described as "a teachable moment." The parameters that it was permitted under were to "teach respect for marriage and committed relationships."

Would it not have to be described as a "teachable moment" to qualify for a field trip at all?

You're reading too much into this. I thought her mentioning that when I didn't know better was absurd because I did not think any wedding would be an acceptable field trip.

But, if weddings somehow do qualify for field trips, then I don't really see the issue regarding that one, because of course the parents did not have to let their children go.

[Blaqheartedstar]

You dont have to try to impress me with your big words. I barely understood anything you just said.

So, its a complex theory.. still has holes and cant be connected at certain places.

lmfao, you didn't get that?
anyway theres holes in pretty much everything. Can't be too sure on much anymore.
science and religion. some of their theories have physical evidence while others don't.

[dosomethin888]

But, if weddings somehow do qualify for field trips, then I don't really see the issue regarding that one, because of course the parents did not have to let their children go.

They dont.

lmfao, you didn't get that?
anyway theres holes in pretty much everything. Can't be too sure on much anymore.
science and religion. some of their theories have physical evidence while others don't.

I mostly just skipped over it.

Maybe it just seems like all theories have holes in them, but does everyone really research enough into each one of them to see if there really are holes... or if they just refuse to believe in them for some reason?

[Blaqheartedstar]

They dont.

true, which the point i'm trying to point to Joss-eh-lime. who thinks that somehow her brother is going to go to one. Its not going to happen . It was a surprise trip that had nothing to do with the school.

[*paperplane*]

Well, I just disagree with the fact that there is, in fact, two sides to the argument. Creationism and Evolution. Sure, there is no "scientific basis" for creationism because it is not a scientific theory. Evolution is, therefore it is going to have plenty of "scientific basis." But it also has many, many holes in it and connections that cant seem to be made.
There are archeological findings that prove that the Bible is accurate on more than one account. And since the Bible is the basis of the Creationism theory, I think that is considered to be evidence enough.

But, I dont like how only evolution is taught when there is clearly an alternative... Its biased. Its not giving the children in the schools a chance to make a decision for themselves. Just imagine if only creationism was taught... how unfair would that be?

Prove it's accurate on what sort of account? Historical things?

There is not clearly an alternative. The alternative you speak of is based entirely off of a religious text, which means that it has no place in public schools. And why were you arguing with me on the need to let kids make decisions for themselves when apparently you agree?

A rational person, thank you.

I agreed with you on that one too...

[dosomethin888]

true, which the point i'm trying to point to Joss-eh-lime. who thinks that somehow her brother is going to go to one. Its not going to happen . It was a surprise trip that had nothing to do with the school.

Ya.... but it might happen again. People are bold. You think something like this will only happen once? Maybe not the exact thing, but people are still going to try to push their lifestyle on others. On children.

[only-tuesdays]

Well, I just disagree with the fact that there is, in fact, two sides to the argument. Creationism and Evolution. Sure, there is no "scientific basis" for creationism because it is not a scientific theory. Evolution is, therefore it is going to have plenty of "scientific basis." But it also has many, many holes in it and connections that cant seem to be made.
There are archeological findings that prove that the Bible is accurate on more than one account. And since the Bible is the basis of the Creationism theory, I think that is considered to be evidence enough.

Humor me. Give evidence for your claims. You keep saying there are holes in the evolutionary theory, but you haven't given any of them. You haven't given any facts to support anything you've said. This is supposed to be a debate, not a place for you to get on your soapbox and spout your beliefs with nothing backing them.

a.... but it might happen again. People are bold. You think something like this will only happen once? Maybe not the exact thing, but people are still going to try to push their lifestyle on others. On children.

But it's OK for you to push your lifestyle on everyone else including children?

[Blaqheartedstar]

Ya.... but it might happen again. People are bold. You think something like this will only happen once? Maybe not the exact thing, but people are still going to try to push their lifestyle on others. On children.

sure its likely to happen again, but a parent has a say in it. If they feel they don't want their child to attend then they don't have to sign and let their kid miss the day. Its as simple as that.

But it's OK for you to push your lifestyle on everyone else including children?

amen to that

[dosomethin888]

Prove it's accurate on what sort of account? Historical things?

There is not clearly an alternative. The alternative you speak of is based entirely off of a religious text, which means that it has no place in public schools. And why were you arguing with me on the need to let kids make decisions for themselves when apparently you agree?

So what if it is a historical/religious text. Just because it is not a scientific theory doesnt throw it out the window. Its a theory, none the less.

And, you said that if I wanted my children to learn about creationism, I should send them to Sunday School... Thats why Im disagreeing with you.

I agreed with you on that one too...

Oh, sorry. Wonderful.

[dosomethin888]

Humor me. Give evidence for your claims. You keep saying there are holes in the evolutionary theory, but you haven't given any of them. You haven't given any facts to support anything you've said. This is supposed to be a debate, not a place for you to get on your soapbox and spout your beliefs with nothing backing them.

Okay....hold on.

But it's OK for you to push your lifestyle on everyone else including children?

Im not pushing my beliefs on anyone. This is a debate forum, jackass.

And if they are my children, I can teach them what I believe in and what I think would be best for them to believe in. You, as well with your children.

amen to that

^ditto.





Oh, no I double posted. Woops.

[Reidar]

But, we havent reached that level yet, have we? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

We're on a far, far lower level without the evidence and information that we do have once you turn to creationist explanations.

You dont have to try to impress me with your big words. I barely understood anything you just said.

In other words, we have cases of very slight changes in fossils that incrementally occur as time passes on. For example, there are instances of fish that are identical to their predecessors except for having morphed primitive forelimb arrangements more similar to amphibian patterns.

So, its a complex theory.. still has holes and cant be connected at certain places.

I'd go so far as to say that I can address any hole you perceive evolution to possess.

Would it not have to be described as a "teachable moment" to qualify for a field trip at all?

It would. That's why it doesn't make sense for you to have thought that it didn't.

You're reading too much into this. I thought her mentioning that when I didn't know better was absurd because I did not think any wedding would be an acceptable field trip.

This wasn't it. You didn't merely say, "That would never happen." If you had, there would be no inconsistency. You actually asked why anyone would even do that all. Both are a declination to objection, and are different from later saying, "So what if that even happens, when it would be educational?"

[only-tuesdays]

Im not pushing my beliefs on anyone. This is a debate forum, jackass.

And if they are my children, I can teach them what I believe in and what I think would be best for them to believe in. You, as well with your children.

I was simply making a point. You think it's so horrible for society to teach about other ways of life, including what you consider to be "wrong" yet at the same time, want evolution to be taught along side creationism. That is pushing your lifestyle on other people. If we were to treat all theories equally we should teach every culture's theory on where human life came from. Regardless of if there is any factual basis.

[*paperplane*]

So what if it is a historical/religious text. Just because it is not a scientific theory doesnt throw it out the window. Its a theory, none the less.

And, you said that if I wanted my children to learn about creationism, I should send them to Sunday School... Thats why Im disagreeing with you.

No, my question about whether the archaeological findings were historical was serious. I'm not sure what findings you were referring to, but if all they did was confirm that events things recorded in the bible aligned with history, it's irrelevant to whether creationism is true. (It's getting late, so I apologize if my rhetoric is confusing.)

And so what if it's a religious text? That would (generally) disqualify it to be taught in public schools.

This wasn't it. You didn't merely say, "That would never happen." If you had, there would be no inconsistency. You actually asked why anyone would even do that all. Both are a declination to objection, and are different from later saying, "So what if that even happens, when it would be educational?"

That's not really inconsistency. I asked why anyone would do it at all in a rhetorical sense because i didn't, and still don't, think that a wedding is a legitimate field trip. But in the event that it did/could happen, of course there would need to be a case for it to be educational. The hypothetical basis was not in question.

[dosomethin888]

I was simply making a point. You think it's so horrible for society to teach about other ways of life, including what you consider to be "wrong" yet at the same time, want evolution to be taught along side creationism. That is pushing your lifestyle on other people. If we were to treat all theories equally we should teach every culture's theory on where human life came from. Regardless of if there is any factual basis.

I agree. Teach every theory or none at all. I dont think that is pushing my views.. I think that is equal.
I take it you believe in evolution(correct me if im wrong), so if only creationism was taught in public schools, would you be "pushing your views" on others by insisting that Evolution be taught alongside it?


Well, I found an interesting web page that documents some archeological findings that prove the Bible is historically accurate: Sodom and Gomorrah, Jericho..

http://www.defendingyourfaith.org/Archaeology.htm

This is an interview with a creationist archeologist which I found interesting:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v...chaeologist.asp

No, my question about whether the archaeological findings were historical was serious. I'm not sure what findings you were referring to, but if all they did was confirm that events things recorded in the bible aligned with history, it's irrelevant to whether creationism is true. (It's getting late, so I apologize if my rhetoric is confusing.)

And so what if it's a religious text? That would (generally) disqualify it to be taught in public schools.

Ya, it is getting late..
The findings prove that the Bible is true. If the Bible is true, then creationism must be true cause it comes straight from the Bible.

I'd go so far as to say that I can address any hole you perceive evolution to possess.

You seem very intelligent. But, Im wondering... have you studied the creationism theory as thoroughly as the evolution theory?

[*paperplane*]

Whoa whoa whoa, no findings have found that "the Bible is true."

I need to sleep, so I'll leave it there, but there is absolutely no way that statement is true.

[dosomethin888]

Whoa whoa whoa, no findings have found that "the Bible is true."

I need to sleep, so I'll leave it there, but there is absolutely no way that statement is true.

*sigh* ... on more than one account.

[only-tuesdays]

I agree. Teach every theory or none at all. I dont think that is pushing my views.. I think that is equal.
I take it you believe in evolution(correct me if im wrong), so if only creationism was taught in public schools, would you be "pushing your views" on others by insisting that Evolution be taught alongside it?

Actually I'm more fond of the Intelligent Design theory. I think the evolutionary theory should be taught in schools simply because it does have scientific evidence backing it. If the parents of the children wish to teach them differently that is completely up to them. But to be completely honest, no Biology class is going to teach a non scientific theory. Creationism is not a scientific theory, it's from the Bible. Not a text book.

Not that it matters, but I'm sure it's going to come up, I am a Christian. I just hate when people shove Christianity down other people's throats, and hate it even more when they do it without even providing any scriptural evidence.

[dosomethin888]

Actually I'm more fond of the Intelligent Design theory. I think the evolutionary theory should be taught in schools simply because it does have scientific evidence backing it. If the parents of the children wish to teach them differently that is completely up to them. But to be completely honest, no Biology class is going to teach a non scientific theory. Creationism is not a scientific theory, it's from the Bible. Not a text book.

Not that it matters, but I'm sure it's going to come up, I am a Christian. I just hate when people shove Christianity down other people's throats, and hate it even more when they do it without even providing any scriptural evidence.

Let me know at any point if Im shoving it down people's throats. I dont think I am.. just because I have a differing opinion doesnt mean Im forcing it on anyone.

It irritates me when people do that too.