Iowa sees its first legal gay marriage! Woohoo!

Post Reply New Topic

Heard it all before, either give me empirical evidence of this deities existence or get off the soapbox.

I believe in God’s existence because He existed before science did, and science is yet to prove that God does not exist.

Science explains the origin of reality with the Big Bang Theory. It says that all the matter in the universe was in a tiny ball, which exploded forming the universe as we know it. What it doesn’t explain is where the matter came from, or why was the matter there. Those questions are strangely similar to the questions where did we come from and why are we here. So we don’t know where the universe came from, therefore we still don’t where we came from, according to science.

Science explains the origin of life in an ambiguous fashion, similar to their origin of reality theory. Science says that after the Big Bang, Earth was covered in water. Lightning hits the water and rearranges the chemicals in it into DNA which created life. In the scientists’ labs, they weren’t able to create life in the same way, disproving their theory. As far as fictionally using lightning to re/animate things, Frankenstein was a better story.

And then there’s evolution… It has so many problems I would likely bore to tears any people still reading this topic if I tried to explain them all. I’ll only list a few. Things like a fly’s wings and a bombardier beetle’s defense mechanism are so complex that they will only work in their entirety. Evolution says that they gradually evolved these survival mechanisms, but a partial wing would hinder a fly more than help it survive, and anything less than a perfectly functioning system of chemical glands and tubes would kill the beetle instead of helping it survive. Also, scientists say that a creature being poisonous or painful when eaten would help it survive by deterring predators. But the creatures that do acquire these traits need to DIE in order for them to be effective, so how can it pass on its traits when it is dead? It just sacrifices itself so its ‘less complex’ cousins can survive.

But there is always my problem with science itself. The information in a current textbook is assumed completely true, but a textbook from 20 years ago is outdated and obsolete. Did nature change? No. Twenty years ago, people thought that textbook was completely true, but now we know it is not. So in 20 years from now, the things that we think are true now will be considered outdated and obsolete. So we can only conclude that the science we think is true today, we will soon find out it is false. Between a textbook and the Bible, I’ll choose the Bible.

the problem is that they want the same legal rights. i'm sure if it was as easy as just going to a different faith, it wouldn't be a problem.


it's not as simple as finding a denomination that works...it's a matter of people want to deny them equal rights.

Some feel that it is their duty to help others not
'sin' according to their definition. If my church did
this, 'twould be called racketeering.

With this said, we get to the question of what a "True" Christian is. Obviously the idea a couple of people here have about what a True Christian is, most likely is the incorrect one.

Indeed, that is a problem, a big one I have to say, which is really sad.

But as this was considered a sin back then, like 2000 years ago, due to ignorance, I could say that they had an excuse for that, in a matter of speaking. But today, this should change, as you can see in the 'Child, Inc' thread, an example of what a few religious views can be dangerous for rejecting medical facts. I hope this would change soon everywhere.

If you don’t mind me quoting Scripture, it says in the book of James it’s not up to us to evaluate and criticize other people’s actions, it’s up to God.

There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you—who are you to judge your neighbor?
James 4:12

Some very well do follow this.
There is at least one member
here, who seems to believe that
it's his duty to proselytize others,
and convince them of their sins.

Christianity operated under that
premise for quite some time. Many
sects still do, hence missionaries.

Having read this thread, I have yet to see an argument against gay marriage which would not be considered very embarassing were the word 'gay' replace by 'interracial'. Nor do I see any reason why this could be considered an irrelevant point.

Marriage, at least in the West, is permitted for couples who don't love each other, for couples who can't procreate, for couples who marry for political reasons, for couples who marry because they were very drunk one night in Las Vegas, and for couples who marry because their friends dared them to. If I, as a man, ask some random woman I see tomorrow to marry me, and she says yes, that's ok legally.

Can anyone explain why it's ok for a man and a woman to marry because they were drunk, but it's not ok for a man and another man (or two women, for that matter) to marry because they love each other and wish to be together as a recognised couple for the rest of their lives?

Last edited by Doc_Daneeka on 13 Sep 2007, 9:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Homosexual acts are actually still
illegal in some states. There are
NO dry states.

Obviously, inebriation is ok, but
a bit of sodomy is not.

those laws violate one's right to privacy and are unconstitutional anyways.

Umm....I have an idea.

You Americans that want to marry same-sex people come on over to England. We call it 'Civil Unions' but the name is pretty much the only difference. I'm sure Tequila (or some other English-based person) will correct me if I'm wrong.

Yeah.
At least 2/3 of the country has banned same-sex marriage.
It's not as easy as running to Canada and performing one there.

In Canada we've legalised same-sex marriage entirely. It's probably cheaper for them to come here. We could use the tourism dollars, heh.

They aren't illegal in any state in the union, unless that state is choosing to ignore the USSC. See Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)

Ah, I've been out of the loop, for a
few years.