Civil rights

For those of you who don't know, the FMA, Federal Marriage Amendment, is a government-sanctioned hate-crime designed to further marginalized a minority group-homosexuals-by taking away their rights to participate in a social institution based on the fact that the origins of this institution are in religion.
There are two basic arguments used by homosexual-hate groups in trying to justify the unconstitutional FMA. The first argument is that a marital union between homosexuals is "unnatural." Besides being untrue (Homosexuality is sometimes practiced by animals in a natural environment.), this argument is based on intuition. This means that I could just as easily have the exact opposite intuition and that it would be no less valid.
I've been trying to think of a way to refute an argument for denying the rights of a group of people based upon a book written by man claiming to have direct contact with an omnipotent being (I win! j/k), and it has illuded me until recently: I must argue based on contradictions in that same book! I don't need to find contradictions to the passage that forbids a civil union between homosexuals; I simply need to find contradictions between other mandates in the good book and our current lifestyle and culture. In other words if we accept any of god's word we must accept it all unless you prefer ala carte religion (I'll take a double portion of Hinduism with a side of Heaven's Gate!).

Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. - Leviticus 18:22
This passage is the basis of the FMA for many of its supporters.

"... the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divided, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you." - Leviticus 11:7-8
".. all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales-whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water-you are to detest. And since you are to detest them, you must not eat their meat and you must detest their carcasses." - Leviticus 11:9-11
How were these passages so overlooked in all of the religious fervor surrounding our "faith-based" administration? Perhaps if these passages oppressed a minority instead of our good ole' white heterosexual Americans, we would give the passages their due. I have never met a Christian who has upheld these beliefs in any capacity. When are we going to begin limiting the rights of all Americans to partake of these unclean foods that are detested by god himself? Maybe we need to debate the rights of states to hand down mandates preventing us from eating these foods which are an abomination unto the lord! Our only hope is that Cheney has an offspring who loves ham!
Supporters of the FMA may still argue that these passages are obscure and thus do not really apply to us. How about something a little more fundamental that we (as a nation) are violating as we speak? What about one of the ten commandments? I am not a Christian, but, having had the unescapable presence of this faith surrounding me at every turn since the day I was born, I happen to know that the single aspect of Christianity that is more fundamental than belief in Christ is the commandments.

"Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, 'Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?'
'Why do you ask me about what is good?' Jesus replied. 'There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.'
'Which ones?' the man inquired. Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,' and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'" - Matthew 19:16-19

That's directly from the mouth of the living god. However, we ignore this as we continue to kill innocents as well as "enemy" soldiers in the name of democracy. Well, now we are killing in the name of democracy. We were killing in the name of our own safety until we discovered that there was no threat to our safety. Those arguments aside, god makes no exceptions for those defending themselves or their insignificant (in the grand scheme) political systems. We are doomed to hell in spite of any motive or rationalizations we might make!

Seperation of church and state, goddamn it.

Screw the seperation of church and state let's read parts of the Bible, like stoning people that work on Sunday. Anyone work today? I have my stone.

The Bible is a bunch of bullshit writen by asshole humans in a bar.

Hehe, I made a whole story up with my Bible Bar idea. hehe

You wouldn't understand the equal protection clause if it bit you in the ass.

I love how people qoute Leviticus like it's some damning sanction of christianity as a whole, yet they conveintly forget that large sections of the Old testement and old covenant are, for lack of a better term, deprecated as soon as Jesus forms a new covenent... which is why most Christian religions aren't jumping up and down screaming "an eye for an eye"

Arguing that animal behavior justifies similar behavior in humans assumes that humans and animals are on the same level. Christianity maintains that this is entirely untrue.

Who the mentained animal behavior?

[quote name='campbelld']For those of you who don't know, the FMA, Federal Marriage Amendment, is a government-sanctioned hate-crime designed to further marginalized a minority group-homosexuals-by taking away their rights to participate in a social institution based on the fact that the origins of this institution are in religion.
There are two basic arguments used by homosexual-hate groups in trying to justify the unconstitutional FMA. The first argument is that a marital union between homosexuals is "unnatural." Besides being untrue (Homosexuality is sometimes practiced by animals in a natural environment.), this argument is based on intuition. This means that I could just as easily have the exact opposite intuition and that it would be no less valid.
[/quote]

Don't rush headlong into arguments before reading the text.

David85, it's funny how you get on here and criticize Christians for what you portray as "intolerance" and "non-acceptance," then you turn around and viciously slander the Bible and Christians. Isn't that a bit hypocritical? You're entitled to your views, but don't expect people to respect you or your viewpoints when you say something like that.

David85 is the perfect example of a PC left wing bigot. I can tell him I don't hate gay people but don't support gay marriage and I'm called a religous right extremeist. The only points people like him will accept as valid are further endorsement of his ideals. Any point contrary even if it meets him 60% of the way is bigoted, extremeist and a violation of his civil rights.

As I've said before the only thing that makes a person gay, lesbian, bisexual or a transexual is their behavior. That's it. You aren't GLB unless you engage in sexual behavior with your same gender. You aren't a transexual unless you start transforming your appearance into that of the opposite gender. All of these require actions and decisions made by an individual to fit a role of "protected status".

Now that that's established I can use any argument by gay rights activists and say by virtue of their position I could support rights be given to other "behavior" type groups like the overweight, smokers, habitual drug users or sexually compulsive.

That being said I'll now be freshly accused of another round of bigotry and hate speech. Why? Because I disagree and poke holes in arguments successfully.

[quote name='The-Bavis']Arguing that animal behavior justifies similar behavior in humans assumes that humans and animals are on the same level. Christianity maintains that this is entirely untrue.[/quote]

My argument wasn't that this animal behavior justifies the behavior of homosexuals (not that they need to be justified if that is the path they choose) but that this behavior cannot be unnatural if it occurs in nature. You have to look at the context of that sentence to understand why it is there.

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']
Now that that's established I can use any argument by gay rights activists and say by virtue of their position I could support rights be given to other "behavior" type groups like the overweight, smokers, habitual drug users or sexually compulsive.[/quote]
I believe all of these groups do have rights, and that they should continue to have rights so long as they do not encroach on the rights of myself or of others without regard to their race, sex, religion, or sexual preference.

[quote name='JSweeney']I love how people qoute Leviticus like it's some damning sanction of christianity as a whole, yet they conveintly forget that large sections of the Old testement and old covenant are, for lack of a better term, deprecated as soon as Jesus forms a new covenent... which is why most Christian religions aren't jumping up and down screaming "an eye for an eye"[/quote]
If it was deprecated, why do we even argue the validity of the FMA based on this passage?

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']David85 is the perfect example of a PC left wing bigot. I can tell him I don't hate gay people but don't support gay marriage and I'm called a religous right extremeist. The only points people like him will accept as valid are further endorsement of his ideals. Any point contrary even if it meets him 60% of the way is bigoted, extremeist and a violation of his civil rights.

As I've said before the only thing that makes a person gay, lesbian, bisexual or a transexual is their behavior. That's it. You aren't GLB unless you engage in sexual behavior with your same gender. You aren't a transexual unless you start transforming your appearance into that of the opposite gender. All of these require actions and decisions made by an individual to fit a role of "protected status".

Now that that's established I can use any argument by gay rights activists and say by virtue of their position I could support rights be given to other "behavior" type groups like the overweight, smokers, habitual drug users or sexually compulsive.[/quote]

WORD

[quote name='campbelld'][quote name='JSweeney']I love how people qoute Leviticus like it's some damning sanction of christianity as a whole, yet they conveintly forget that large sections of the Old testement and old covenant are, for lack of a better term, deprecated as soon as Jesus forms a new covenent... which is why most Christian religions aren't jumping up and down screaming "an eye for an eye"[/quote]
If it was deprecated, why do we even argue the validity of the FMA based on this passage?[/quote]

Because Christianity is such a broad grouping of liberal and conservative churches. A hard core conservative church would qoute verse from Leviticus, but a more liberal church would qoute something more akin to this passage from first Corithians:

1Corithians 6:9-10: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

1Timothy 10

8We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9We also know that law[1] is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers--and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

You have to remember.. many christian churches will not grant a male/female couple a marriage if one of them was previously divorced.
Like adultery and such, it is seen as deviant and against the will of God.

Campbelld despite what you claim you seem as though you don't know jack about Christianity.

[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']Campbelld despite what you claim you seem as though you don't know jack about Christianity.[/quote]
That's pretty vague. Why don't you enlighten me?

So, if I'm interpreting you correctly, you're trying to say that you do not support the FMA based on biblical mandates. I don't either. We seem to agree on that. I assume that you do support the amendment on some ground. Otherwise you would not attack my argument. Why don't you present a different argument that I could consider? I'm not saying that these are the only ways people rationalize the amendment, but these are the most common I have seen. I would love an opportunity to discuss with someone with a perspective other than these which you and I both agree are flawed. Instead of saying, "What a ridiculous argument! That's not even why I support the amendment," tell me what your reasoning is. This seems like more of an attempt to stifle the discussion than to contribute anything. As you admit there are conservative interpretations of the bible that use precisely the reasoning cited in my argument for justification. Those are the very people I was targeting with this argument.
[quote name='JSweeney'][quote name='campbelld'][quote name='JSweeney']I love how people qoute Leviticus like it's some damning sanction of christianity as a whole, yet they conveintly forget that large sections of the Old testement and old covenant are, for lack of a better term, deprecated as soon as Jesus forms a new covenent... which is why most Christian religions aren't jumping up and down screaming "an eye for an eye"[/quote]
If it was deprecated, why do we even argue the validity of the FMA based on this passage?[/quote]

Because Christianity is such a broad grouping of liberal and conservative churches. A hard core conservative church would qoute verse from Leviticus, but a more liberal church would qoute something more akin to this passage from first Corithians:

1Corithians 6:9-10: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

1Timothy 10

8We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9We also know that law[1] is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers--and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

You have to remember.. many christian churches will not grant a male/female couple a marriage if one of them was previously divorced.
Like adultery and such, it is seen as deviant and against the will of God.[/quote]

[quote name='JSweeney']I love how people qoute Leviticus like it's some damning sanction of christianity as a whole, yet they conveintly forget that large sections of the Old testement and old covenant are, for lack of a better term, deprecated as soon as Jesus forms a new covenent... which is why most Christian religions aren't jumping up and down screaming "an eye for an eye"[/quote]

If I may say so, it might be in your best interest to read the Bible a little more thoroughly.

Jesus said Himself, "I came not to destroy the old law, but to fulfill it."

"Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." - Psalms 119:160

"The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law." - Luke 16:16-17

Which means that in order to be a True Christian, you must follow each and every single law of the Old and New Testaments, even those verses that make today's "politically-correct" Christian feel a little uncomfortable, like these:

• -- "And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death." - Exodus 21:17
  -- "And my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless." - Exodus 22:24 (Mess with God, and He'll kill you)
  -- "And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death." - Leviticus 24:16 (You know, it's been a while since I attended a good community blasphemer-stoning)
  -- "I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not." - Jude 1:5 (God destroys non-believers)
  -- "He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:" - Hebrews 10:28 (God mercilessly slaughters those who do not follow the Old Testament law)

Wait a minute... Jude, Hebrews... Those are in the goody two-shoes New Testament!! How can this be!?!?

[quote name='SwiftyLeZar'][quote name='JSweeney']I love how people qoute Leviticus like it's some damning sanction of christianity as a whole, yet they conveintly forget that large sections of the Old testement and old covenant are, for lack of a better term, deprecated as soon as Jesus forms a new covenent... which is why most Christian religions aren't jumping up and down screaming "an eye for an eye"[/quote]

If I may say so, it might be in your best interest to read the Bible a little more thoroughly.

Jesus said Himself, "I came not to destroy the old law, but to fulfill it."

"Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." - Psalms 119:160

"The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law." - Luke 16:16-17

Which means that in order to be a True Christian, you must follow each and every single law of the Old and New Testaments, even those verses that make today's "politically-correct" Christian feel a little uncomfortable, like these:

• -- "And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death." - Exodus 21:17
  -- "And my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless." - Exodus 22:24 (Mess with God, and He'll kill you)
  -- "And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death." - Leviticus 24:16 (You know, it's been a while since I attended a good community blasphemer-stoning)
  -- "I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not." - Jude 1:5 (God destroys non-believers)
  -- "He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:" - Hebrews 10:28 (God mercilessly slaughters those who do not follow the Old Testament law)

Wait a minute... Jude, Hebrews... Those are in the goody two-shoes New Testament!! How can this be!?!?[/quote]

That is so wrong it is not even funny.

If that's the case, then get to refuting, buddy!

You see, I'm a programmer, and often forget that some terms I use have a different usage and connotation that they usually do.

To an average person, deprecation is express disproval of, or to deplore.
To those programmers among us, it means:

deprecated: Said of a program or feature that is considered obsolescent
and in the process of being phased out, usually in favour of a
specified replacement.

Jesus, when he says "I came not to destroy the old law, but to fulfill it.", shows us just that. He is providing us with the specific replacements of these "obsolete" rules.

By the standard view of deprecation, your post would be right...
in the programmer's mindset, what I said is valid... while not destroying the rules and laws that existed before, Jesus came, refined and rewrote the rules and laws that his followers were expected to follow.

[quote name='JSweeney']Jesus, when he says "I came not to destroy the old law, but to fulfill it.", shows us just that. He is providing us with the specific replacements of these "obsolete" rules. [/quote]
I think "fulfill" and "replace" are two different things entirely.

[quote name='JSweeney']
Jesus, when he says "I came not to destroy the old law, but to fulfill it.", shows us just that. He is providing us with the specific replacements of these "obsolete" rules. [/quote]

But if he's replacing the rules, which I assume means throwing out the old law in favor of a "new" law, would that not constitute "destroying" the old law?

Even so, what about the thing in Hebrews where God said He killed everyone who didn't follow Moses's law (law of the Old Testament)?

But if he's replacing the rules, which I assume means throwing out the old law in favor of a "new" law, would that not constitute "destroying" the old law?

Replace = enhance.
If I edit even a character in the source code of my program, I must recompile the file... thus "replacing" the orginal file. Even a minor change like the addition or deletion of an extra character requires the replacement of the original file.

Even so, what about the thing in Hebrews where God said He killed everyone who didn't follow Moses's law (law of the Old Testament)?

Just because something has been deprecated doesn't mean it is without use. Looking at most programming manuals will have at least a few sections of the use of deprecated code, as even though it's fallen somewhat out of favor due to it's obsolecence, it's still of use.

The same could be said about many parts of the Old Testament.

The bible is a religious text. There's absolutely no point quoting from it when you're dealing with legal issues.

Yes, there are people who believe the bible should be the basis for law, but any Americans who think that are betraying the principles on which the country was founded. Even if the religious right does try to revise history, 1984-style.

[quote name='eldad9']The bible is a religious text. There's absolutely no point quoting from it when you're dealing with legal issues.

Yes, there are people who believe the bible should be the basis for law, but any Americans who think that are betraying the principles on which the country was founded. Even if the religious right does try to revise history, 1984-style.[/quote]

To claim this country and the laws written for it are not based on Judeo-Christian values is absurd.

Like virtually all internet debates people take extreme positions that something must be all or nothing.

This is such an example.

CTL

[quote name='SwiftyLeZar']But if he's replacing the rules, which I assume means throwing out the old law in favor of a "new" law, would that not constitute "destroying" the old law?[/quote]

The question is, is it "I'm issuing and incremental upgrade, so laws I don't mention stay the way the were", or "I'm issuing a complete rewrite, and none of the old stuff applies any more"?

[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='eldad9']The bible is a religious text. There's absolutely no point quoting from it when you're dealing with legal issues.

Yes, there are people who believe the bible should be the basis for law, but any Americans who think that are betraying the principles on which the country was founded. Even if the religious right does try to revise history, 1984-style.[/quote]

To claim this country and the laws written for it are not based on Judeo-Christian values is absurd.

Like virtually all internet debates people take extreme positions that something must be all or nothing.

This is such an example.

CTL[/quote]

Which laws are based on Judeo-Christian values?

[quote name='JSweeney']You see, I'm a programmer, and often forget that some terms I use have a different usage and connotation that they usually do.

deprecated: Said of a program or feature that is considered obsolescent
and in the process of being phased out, usually in favour of a
specified replacement. [/quote]

Let me guess: Java.

[quote name='eldad9'][quote name='JSweeney']You see, I'm a programmer, and often forget that some terms I use have a different usage and connotation that they usually do.

deprecated: Said of a program or feature that is considered obsolescent
and in the process of being phased out, usually in favour of a
specified replacement. [/quote]

Let me guess: Java.[/quote]

One of the many.

[quote name='CTLesq']
To claim this country and the laws written for it are not based on Judeo-Christian values is absurd.
[/quote]

Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, ratified by the United States Government on June 10, 1797:
"... the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion..."

[quote name='SwiftyLeZar'][quote name='CTLesq']
To claim this country and the laws written for it are not based on Judeo-Christian values is absurd.
[/quote]

Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, ratified by the United States Government on June 10, 1797:
"... the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion..."[/quote]
I'm sure that treaty has been deprecated/fulfilled/replaced/enhanced/upgraded since then.

replace != enhance
deprecate == deplore
No compilers or interpreters have been ported to the American politics platform yet. Do we rewrite the entire Constitution to make amendments?
[quote name='JSweeney']But if he's replacing the rules, which I assume means throwing out the old law in favor of a "new" law, would that not constitute "destroying" the old law?

Replace = enhance.
If I edit even a character in the source code of my program, I must recompile the file... thus "replacing" the orginal file. Even a minor change like the addition or deletion of an extra character requires the replacement of the original file.

Even so, what about the thing in Hebrews where God said He killed everyone who didn't follow Moses's law (law of the Old Testament)?

Just because something has been deprecated doesn't mean it is without use. Looking at most programming manuals will have at least a few sections of the use of deprecated code, as even though it's fallen somewhat out of favor due to it's obsolecence, it's still of use.

The same could be said about many parts of the Old Testament.[/quote]

No compilers or interpreters have been ported to the American politics platform yet. Do we rewrite the entire Constitution to make amendments?

Well, duh...
The Constitution is Object Oriented. I thought you would have known that.
We write "Amendment" objects to enhance the functionality we want.

replace != enhance

This is an equality operator, and not the assignment operator as was originally stated. Not to mention that it will return false.

As the = operator behaves like other operators, expressions using it have a value in addition to assigning that value into variable. This means that you can chain assignment operators as follows:

j = k = l = 0;
j, k, and l equal zero after the example statement is executed

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/script56/html/js56jsoprassign.asp
Since the value assigned to replace came from enhance, they will be the same, and your not equal operator will return "FALSE"


deprecate == deplore

At compile time this will fail because different values have already been assigned.

[quote name='JSweeney']replace != enhance

This is an equality operator, and not the assignment operator as was originally stated. Not to mention that it will return false.

As the = operator behaves like other operators, expressions using it have a value in addition to assigning that value into variable. This means that you can chain assignment operators as follows:

j = k = l = 0;
j, k, and l equal zero after the example statement is executed

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/script56/html/js56jsoprassign.asp
Since the value assigned to replace came from enhance, they will be the same, and your not equal operator will return "FALSE"


deprecate == deplore

At compile time this will fail because different values have already been assigned.[/quote]
That was actually satirical, and I never said that != was an assignment operator. Sorry about the inconsistencies. I was going based on dictionary definitions of the words instead of their meanings in the context of computer programming languages. I must've forgotten that we are now coding our political theory. Based on the economic and foreign policy results brought about by the current administration, we may need to seriously revise our error handling... or maybe just implement it.

On a lighter note, I happened across the psuedocode for the latest Floridian voting machines. Looks like we're in for more of the same in 2004. Here's an excerpt:

//Here's that code you requested, bro. - Jeb
If voter.race == black then
voter.vote = null
:lol:

http://www.democracymeansyou.com/cartoons/moser/slowprogress.gif

Here's something that has lots to do with homophobia and nothing to do with programming!

[quote name='campbelld'][quote name='The-Bavis']Arguing that animal behavior justifies similar behavior in humans assumes that humans and animals are on the same level. Christianity maintains that this is entirely untrue.[/quote]

My argument wasn't that this animal behavior justifies the behavior of homosexuals (not that they need to be justified if that is the path they choose) but that this behavior cannot be unnatural if it occurs in nature. You have to look at the context of that sentence to understand why it is there. [/quote]

You're right. The main argument that the Church makes, and lots of loudmouths transform into an argument against what's natural is really an argument against hedonism. The Church's main beef is against homosexuality as another form of hedonism. Any sexual activity that is not performed with the intent and or willingness for procreation is a sin. Homosexual sex can not result in a new life, and is therefore seen as immoral, as is masturbation, oral sex, etc.

[quote name='The-Bavis']You're right. The main argument that the Church makes, and lots of loudmouths transform into an argument against what's natural is really an argument against hedonism. The Church's main beef is against homosexuality as another form of hedonism. Any sexual activity that is not performed with the intent and or willingness for procreation is a sin. Homosexual sex can not result in a new life, and is therefore seen as immoral, as is masturbation, oral sex, etc.[/quote]
However, hedonism is totally subjective. I do not believe that homosexual sex is hedonistic. I am not of the belief that hedonism does not exist though. I go to school, I work, and I take care of a family among other things. These things do not satisfy my immediate desire for pleasure. I also do not believe there are many Christian couples who "practice what they preach" if you assert that this is their argument against homosexuality. How many of them truly intend to create a child each time they have sex? I think we would see much larger families if this were the case.

[quote name='campbelld'][quote name='The-Bavis']You're right. The main argument that the Church makes, and lots of loudmouths transform into an argument against what's natural is really an argument against hedonism. The Church's main beef is against homosexuality as another form of hedonism. Any sexual activity that is not performed with the intent and or willingness for procreation is a sin. Homosexual sex can not result in a new life, and is therefore seen as immoral, as is masturbation, oral sex, etc.[/quote]
However, hedonism is totally subjective. I do not believe that homosexual sex is hedonistic. I am not of the belief that hedonism does not exist though. I go to school, I work, and I take care of a family among other things. These things do not satisfy my immediate desire for pleasure. I also do not believe there are many Christian couples who "practice what they preach" if you assert that this is their argument against homosexuality. How many of them truly intend to create a child each time they have sex? I think we would see much larger families if this were the case.[/quote]

You obviously haven't seen many Irish-American families, have you?

[quote name='eldad9'][quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='eldad9']The bible is a religious text. There's absolutely no point quoting from it when you're dealing with legal issues.

Yes, there are people who believe the bible should be the basis for law, but any Americans who think that are betraying the principles on which the country was founded. Even if the religious right does try to revise history, 1984-style.[/quote]

To claim this country and the laws written for it are not based on Judeo-Christian values is absurd.

Like virtually all internet debates people take extreme positions that something must be all or nothing.

This is such an example.

CTL[/quote]

Which laws are based on Judeo-Christian values?[/quote]

Such ignorance and you would presume to tell us they aren't?

None of them - as I demonstrated.

[quote name='SwiftyLeZar']None of them - as I demonstrated.[/quote]

Right, I keep forgetting you are the one with the law degree.

No, you keep forgetting that I'm right.

I repeat:
"... the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion..."
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796t.htm#art10

And, you're probably thinking that means nothing because it's just a treaty.
In that case, I'd like to direct you to Article 6 of this thing called the "Constitution:"
"Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. "

There, now that we've established that this country was not based on Judeo-Christian values, onto the laws:
"Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

Making laws based on Judeo-Christian values is respecting an establishment of religion and is therefore unacceptable.

[quote name='SwiftyLeZar']No, you keep forgetting that I'm right.

I repeat:
"... the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion..."
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796t.htm#art10

And, you're probably thinking that means nothing because it's just a treaty.
In that case, I'd like to direct you to Article 6 of this thing called the "Constitution:"
"Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. "

There, now that we've established that this country was not based on Judeo-Christian values, onto the laws:
"Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

Making laws based on Judeo-Christian values is respecting an establishment of religion and is therefore unacceptable.[/quote]

You are an imbecile par excellence.

The treaty you cite to is of no bearing on whether the US is a country based on Judeo Christian values.

Apparently you don't spend American money.

Apparently laws against murder, theft, adultry et al where made in a vaccume?

That you can locate a document signed with the Barbary Pirates in 1790 -something declaring the US does not bear religious hatred to them does not mean that the US was not founded on Judeo-Christian values.

CTL

Making laws based on Judeo-Christian values is respecting an establishment of religion and is therefore unacceptable.

Click to expand...

This just in....

The following things have changed.

1. Murder, as it is based on the 5th commandment is legal.
2. Theft, as it is based on the 7th commandment is legal.
3. Perjury or filing false affidavits, they are based on the 8th commandment these things are now legal.
4. Adultery is now no longer grounds for divorice as it is the 6th commandment and is clearly.... unacceptable.
5. The standard work week now is going to be seven days. It is clear that the third commandment menas nothing. Since there is no Sabbath there is no need for time away from work.

Welcome to the world that has no law based on Judeo-Christian values. Hope you enjoy your day.

Happy now?
:lol:

[quote name='CTLesq']
The treaty you cite to is of no bearing on whether the US is a country based on Judeo Christian values.
[/quote]

Huh, well I'm open to your interpretation of "Supreme Law of the Land."

[quote name='SwiftyLeZar'][quote name='CTLesq']
The treaty you cite to is of no bearing on whether the US is a country based on Judeo Christian values.
[/quote]

Huh, well I'm open to your interpretation of "Supreme Law of the Land."[/i][/quote]

Like the ABM treaty we just left?

Like SEATO?

Please. Don't even try.

Go find a NYT editorial written by Jayson Blair that legalizes plagerism.

CTL