You know how America's constitution is built on the saying: "Seperation Between Church And State" Well I think that it is a load of c**p. It says that, but why is a homosexual communion illegal in the majority of most states? It is because most of the government officials are these religious hypocrites that say gay marriage is unlawful and unrightcheous (sp?). That has just been on my mind recently, do you agree?

George Bush Jr is a Christian Fundamentalist, his whole Foreign Policy is built upon reviving the Medieval Crusades in the Middle East... Every American President has intoned the "God Bless America" mantra into the end of every bloody speech they make....

 

"Separation of Church And State"???? What a joke....

 

We aint exactly immune from it in this country either, Tony B-liar is another bloody 'born again', sent his kids to religious schools, has a bint from OPUS FUKKIN' DEI IN his Cabinet and went on a chat show basically saying that "God would judge" him over the Iraq invasion....

for once though the link between the church and state might be a good thing.... not on this topic but because fundamental christians are now waking up to climate change and the effect their lifestyle is having upon the planets climate.

 

whilst some are 'end-timers' and would welcome the apocolypse, others are now starting to take a different view, becoming greener, and are taking on board the nessecity (sp?) to look after 'gods' environment.

 

without america on board, then tackling climate change is all but pointless.

America will be a decent respectable country again in a couple of years time when this f***wit leaves office although I still hope he leaves courtesy of an assassins bullet or an Ariel Sharon type incapacitation. Of the 3 likely president Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Hillary Clinton all are committed to things like climate change, stem cell research and so on so America will become a decent nation again

I think u are using religion for expiation of all problems of society... I don´t believe GWB is really a fundamentalist christian, he just uses the speech directed for his electors. I think every president in USA history has officialy been a "christian", and isn´t it a big coincidence that in GWB biography he was "born again" just when he started his public and politic life? And became a methodist just because that´s one of the most politically influent denomination in USA? All this anti-gay stuff, "Gob bless America" and all sorts of redneck christian ideas is just obrigatory for anyone who wants to be a president in USA.

 

But on the other hand, what´s the problem if Mr. Blair sent his kids to a religious school? A president or a PM is a human being and has the right to develop his family under a religion... Please don´t forget that a democracy should be driven by the people and the ideas of the predominant religion will always influence politics, because democracy is exactly what this is supposed to be.

 

I don´t get this whole gay marriage stuff, sorry... As far as I know in most western countries, including USA and UK, people are not forbidden to have sexual relations and share their life with a partner of the same sex, is it? What difference it makes to have a civil marriage then? This is the only thing I struggle to understand... I think a gay couple has all the rights to walk in the streets, live together and have their private life but what is so important about having an official marriage?

 

I think the discrimination towards gay people have always existed and I don´t credit it exclusively to religion... I have known several atheist and non-religious people who are extremely homophobic. What happens is that people have their own ideas, and they just use religious ideology when it coincides with it... You hardly see Bible fundamentalists condemning richness, do you? And i can mention loads of other typical habits from today´s christians that would be an equal aberration to Bible concepts. The repugnancy people have for homossexuality is something natural and has always existed in the human race. We should learn to be tolerant however with people´s lifestyles as long as it doesn´t cause damage to other people. I always thought about an homossexual relation as something not natural... To use a part of the digestive system to have a sexual relation is a type of violence to your own body and if you talk with a doctor I think he will NOT recommend it. But adult people can do whatever their want with their bodies and it´s only their problem to deal with the biological inconveniences it will cause.

I think u are using religion for expiation of all problems of society... I don´t believe GWB is really a fundamentalist christian, he just uses the speech directed for his electors. I think every president in USA history has officialy been a "christian", and isn´t it a big coincidence that in GWB biography he was "born again" just when he started his public and politic life? And became a methodist just because that´s one of the most politically influent denomination in USA? All this anti-gay stuff, "Gob bless America" and all sorts of redneck christian ideas is just obrigatory for anyone who wants to be a president in USA.

 

yes i think you are right there, i dont buy gwb's christian ideals either i strongly suspect that its all show..

 

 

 

I think the discrimination towards gay people have always existed and I don´t credit it exclusively to religion... I have known several atheist and non-religious people who are extremely homophobic. What happens is that people have their own ideas, and they just use religious ideology when it coincides with it... You hardly see Bible fundamentalists condemning richness, do you? And i can mention loads of other typical habits from today´s christians that would be an equal aberration to Bible concepts. The repugnancy people have for homossexuality is something natural and has always existed in the human race. We should learn to be tolerant however with people´s lifestyles as long as it doesn´t cause damage to other people. I always thought about an homossexual relation as something not natural... To use a part of the digestive system to have a sexual relation is a type of violence to your own body and if you talk with a doctor I think he will NOT recommend it. But adult people can do whatever their want with their bodies and it´s only their problem to deal with the biological inconveniences it will cause.

 

 

i also agree with some of this... the bible isnt wholely to blame for homophobia, i think people are naturally disturbed (?) by it. i for one dont regard my bottom as a sex organ, its there for excreting waste matter, and i think alot of people agree...

 

it all boils down to wether homosexuality is natural or not. this isnt a straight foreward conclusion, whilst by natural design 99% of all living speciese have and require 2 sexes, people are born with their sexuality pre-installed. i dont believe for 1 minute that you can make a straight man gay, or a gay man straight if they have no inherant preditermination, (of course theres also that sliding scale of 'gayness', most of us are at either end, but some people are somewhere in between and can be gay/straight or any degree of 'bi' ) so how can homosexuality be un natural if people are born that way?

 

taking the notion further... if our sexuality is inherant at birth, does that mean that other forms of sexuality are also installed in the womb?.. as i understand sexuality you are born with certain traits, tastes that you will like, and others you wont no matter what.

 

but if your sexuality is pre-ordained and you are what you are by birth.... does that make rapists natural? paedos natural? necrophiliacs, coprophiliacs, etc etc etc natural dispite their unfortunate and abhorrant tastes?....... because i dont think you can chose these things therefore you could argue that perverts are merely acting upon their inherant instincts.

 

hmm.... just a thought or two :)

 

 

I find your post very pertinent, because I always thought to myself that if homossexuality is something natural just because homossexuals didn´t chose their sexuality, then I think paedophilia is too, because I doubt someone ever chosen to feel atracted by little children, am I wrong? (Please don´t stone me, I´m not comparing in any way homossexuals to paedophilians). Most homossexuals refure to have their sexuality labeled as a disease or a misformation. I don´t want to sound like a George Bush elector, but if you are born with a tendence to feel atracted by someone of the same sex you are in the same situation as someone who is born with an impossibility to have children, for example. And I´d rather be considered a person with a disease then a person with imorality... We may have our natural instincts and some are just different from the majority. People expect to become an adult person with sexual atraction for other adult human being of the opposite sex, but a minority will end up feeling atracted by someone of the same sex, and why not someone underaged or someone DEAD? Or an animal? In the end, your tendencies cannot be judged as moral or imoral, but your attitudes, what you make out of it... A man cannot be condemned for feeling atracted by a 5 year old girl, yet he CAN be condemned for abusing this girl and hurting her to satisfy his desires. Then, in the end it´s up for everyone´s choices to follow or not follow your "inner voice" acording to your moral sources, as long as it doesn´t cause damage to others. It doesn´t matter if homossexuality is natural or not, as long as it´s something done among adult persons with free consent, without causing damage to anyone then it should be tolerated, but I guess it´s too much to ask for everyone to feel comfortable with it or even happy. Parents will never be fully happy when they discover they have a gay son, and a gay couple will always cause more commotion in public places then an hetero couple. Throwing stones will not help, and tryng to force a minority culture into the main public either... We are all human beings and we should just tolerate each other and leave in peace.

I find your post very pertinent, because I always thought to myself that if homossexuality is something natural just because homossexuals didn´t chose their sexuality, then I think paedophilia is too, because I doubt someone ever chosen to feel atracted by little children, am I wrong? (Please don´t stone me, I´m not comparing in any way homossexuals to paedophilians). Most homossexuals refure to have their sexuality labeled as a disease or a misformation. I don´t want to sound like a George Bush elector, but if you are born with a tendence to feel atracted by someone of the same sex you are in the same situation as someone who is born with an impossibility to have children, for example. And I´d rather be considered a person with a disease then a person with imorality... We may have our natural instincts and some are just different from the majority. People expect to become an adult person with sexual atraction for other adult human being of the opposite sex, but a minority will end up feeling atracted by someone of the same sex, and why not someone underaged or someone DEAD? Or an animal? In the end, your tendencies cannot be judged as moral or imoral, but your attitudes, what you make out of it... A man cannot be condemned for feeling atracted by a 5 year old girl, yet he CAN be condemned for abusing this girl and hurting her to satisfy his desires. Then, in the end it´s up for everyone´s choices to follow or not follow your "inner voice" acording to your moral sources, as long as it doesn´t cause damage to others. It doesn´t matter if homossexuality is natural or not, as long as it´s something done among adult persons with free consent, without causing damage to anyone then it should be tolerated, but I guess it´s too much to ask for everyone to feel comfortable with it or even happy. Parents will never be fully happy when they discover they have a gay son, and a gay couple will always cause more commotion in public places then an hetero couple. Throwing stones will not help, and tryng to force a minority culture into the main public either... We are all human beings and we should just tolerate each other and leave in peace.

 

 

agreed 100%. ive been around long enough to have known/met/heard of people with a wide variety of sexual urges. as long as it isnt harming anyone else then its fine by me, non of my business. obviously acting upon these urges and harming someone (as in paedophillia) is wrong. full stop. end of. however having the urges arnt something of choice.

 

 

I believe in God, but I don't think he is as judgemental as people think he is. I think that the Catholic church has manipulated things in the bible, such as homosexuality. Besides that, I agree with all points given.

I believe in God, but I don't think he is as judgemental as people think he is. I think that the Catholic church has manipulated things in the bible, such as homosexuality. Besides that, I agree with all points given.

 

Well, but the hardest part of the Bible against homossexuals is in the old testament ages before the Catholic Church... Blame the jews.

I believe in God, but I don't think he is as judgemental as people think he is. I think that the Catholic church has manipulated things in the bible, such as homosexuality. Besides that, I agree with all points given.

Certainly much rubbish in the bible.

 

Take this one.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_...er=2&version=31

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.

Certainly much rubbish in the bible.

 

Take this one.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_...er=2&version=31

 

 

that c**p highlights just why you cant take this suspersticious medieval ... nay... dark age scripture at face value...... but if you dont then what use is it? its either the truth or it isnt, you cant have a mid way point. the bibles either right 100% or its value is totally lost. how can you pick and chose which bits to be the truth?..

 

that is why i believe that the author of the bible and the author of creation are not the same thing! clearly the life support systems upon this planet are so exact and are NOT open to interpretation, that this bible thing cannot be 'the word of god'. "but it was written by man"... SO WHAT? if god wanted to convey such an important message then he would certainly have made sure it got through!!!!!!

Certainly much rubbish in the bible.

 

Take this one.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_...er=2&version=31

 

 

Well, it proves my point that people are not homophobic because of the Bible... Otherwise we wouldn´t see homophobic female preachers in USA, since women would never be allowed to "preach" in a literal interpretation of the Bible... People just take what is convenient to them and use it, and pretend not to see the part that affects themselves. This particular verse is taken from a letter of Paul... and the letter itself doesn´t claim to be 100% divine word... IMO it´s a mistake to take everything that´s written there as God´s word and apply it today, but people should read it with a pinch of salt considering it was written by a jewish men in the 1st century, you cannot blame him for having certain prejudices. Philosophers like Aristotle had an even worst opinion towards women, and that didn´t keep him from having the status of one of the genius of humanity. So you can´t expect a religious person from the 1st century to be free from any prejudice. Things have changed a lot since them... These days most work requires intelligent instead of physical strenght, so woman are finally having the same chances as man in society. Bak in the day, work was something for men only... Women should stay at home and take care of the children. It was a different society. You can´t blame people from having these thoughts. How would you expect a jewish or greek woman in the 1st century would work and "lead" a family when she had 10 kids on her house to raise and work required physical strenght? It´s only natural the society had a division of tasks and men (who, because of nature, don´t get pregnant and are physically stronger then women) would have the exterior work and the authority to defend the family. What most people don´t see is the oposite side, cause Paul also said the men, if necessary, should literally die for their women... So this put woman´s life above men´s life, and men should use his strenght and autority to DEFEND his family, not just to be arbitrary with his decisions like some current fundamentalists want to be... Again, this was the 1st century. The idea of someone working in 2007 is much different from that time... Work at that time was taking wood in the forest... Work today is stand in the front of a computer. Families at that time had 10 kids, now they have 2 if much... It´s natural women start to have a bigger liberty to go out and work, and consequently lead a family. They also won´t need to defend their houses from foreigner soldiers or wild animals anymore. Remember one of the barriers christinity found in greece and the roman empire was the fact its teachings were considered too "feminist" (cause in rome and greece, women didn´t have the status of a citizen, while in the Bible they were put in equality to men in front of God). It´s easy to criticize something that was written 2000 years ago when you did not live at that particular place and moment in history.

^^^

Totally agree.

Well, it proves my point that people are not homophobic because of the Bible... Otherwise we wouldn´t see homophobic female preachers in USA, since women would never be allowed to "preach" in a literal interpretation of the Bible... People just take what is convenient to them and use it, and pretend not to see the part that affects themselves. This particular verse is taken from a letter of Paul... and the letter itself doesn´t claim to be 100% divine word... IMO it´s a mistake to take everything that´s written there as God´s word and apply it today, but people should read it with a pinch of salt considering it was written by a jewish men in the 1st century, you cannot blame him for having certain prejudices. Philosophers like Aristotle had an even worst opinion towards women, and that didn´t keep him from having the status of one of the genius of humanity. So you can´t expect a religious person from the 1st century to be free from any prejudice. Things have changed a lot since them... These days most work requires intelligent instead of physical strenght, so woman are finally having the same chances as man in society. Bak in the day, work was something for men only... Women should stay at home and take care of the children. It was a different society. You can´t blame people from having these thoughts. How would you expect a jewish or greek woman in the 1st century would work and "lead" a family when she had 10 kids on her house to raise and work required physical strenght? It´s only natural the society had a division of tasks and men (who, because of nature, don´t get pregnant and are physically stronger then women) would have the exterior work and the authority to defend the family. What most people don´t see is the oposite side, cause Paul also said the men, if necessary, should literally die for their women... So this put woman´s life above men´s life, and men should use his strenght and autority to DEFEND his family, not just to be arbitrary with his decisions like some current fundamentalists want to be... Again, this was the 1st century. The idea of someone working in 2007 is much different from that time... Work at that time was taking wood in the forest... Work today is stand in the front of a computer. Families at that time had 10 kids, now they have 2 if much... It´s natural women start to have a bigger liberty to go out and work, and consequently lead a family. They also won´t need to defend their houses from foreigner soldiers or wild animals anymore. Remember one of the barriers christinity found in greece and the roman empire was the fact its teachings were considered too "feminist" (cause in rome and greece, women didn´t have the status of a citizen, while in the Bible they were put in equality to men in front of God). It´s easy to criticize something that was written 2000 years ago when you did not live at that particular place and moment in history.

 

Well, what you're saying just proves that it's time for an 'uprgrade' of all our religious materials.... People's opinions and prejudices from the 1st century has no place and totally no relevance in 2007.... And at the end of the day, that's all the Bible, Koran, etc, is - OPINION..... As Rob says, it is NOT the 'word of god'. If we accept God exists, then he created the Dinosaurs, which came around and died out MILLIONS of years before we stopped swinging from trees (an incredibly simple fact that these 'religious types' seem to have no answer for..).... Why no mention of Dinosaurs in the bible or koran then if it's the 'word of God'...? Hmmm, could it be because that MAN did not know of the existence of Dinosaurs until a hundred or so years back....? Could be......

Well, what you're saying just proves that it's time for an 'uprgrade' of all our religious materials.... People's opinions and prejudices from the 1st century has no place and totally no relevance in 2007.... And at the end of the day, that's all the Bible, Koran, etc, is - OPINION..... As Rob says, it is NOT the 'word of god'. If we accept God exists, then he created the Dinosaurs, which came around and died out MILLIONS of years before we stopped swinging from trees (an incredibly simple fact that these 'religious types' seem to have no answer for..).... Why no mention of Dinosaurs in the bible or koran then if it's the 'word of God'...? Hmmm, could it be because that MAN did not know of the existence of Dinosaurs until a hundred or so years back....? Could be......

 

 

Some christians dont believe the dinosaurs existed. :lol:

Some christians dont believe the dinosaurs existed. :lol:

 

I believe it must 0,5% of the total then...

 

Well, the Bible does not mention dinosaurs as it doesn´t mention trilobites and all other zillions of animals and vegetals species that have been extinct before men surfaced in Earth, otherwise it would be a much longer book then it already is and it would be a book about paleonthology. It´s not because dinosaurs got "famous" from paleonthology that they are supposed to be more important then 2 million species who existed before. For the record, there were some things that MAN didn´t knew 2 or 4 thousand years ago and were mentioned there... for example, the fact that on primitive earth there was only 1 continent and 1 ocean, and a division ocurred later. And also the fact the universe had a beginning, largely acepted since the big bang theory, but considered a fairitale prior to that for scientists who thought it had always existed.

For the record, there were some things that MAN didn´t knew 2 or 4 thousand years ago and were mentioned there... for example, the fact that on primitive earth there was only 1 continent and 1 ocean, and a division ocurred later. And also the fact the universe had a beginning, largely acepted since the big bang theory, but considered a fairitale prior to that for scientists who thought it had always existed.

 

that was a lucky guess.... they just assumed there was 1 landmass out of ignorance more then knowlege. they didnt know it (scientifically with evidence)

 

as for the universe having a begining... what was before that?... elements must have existed somewhere... the big bang explains this phase of the universes life but it existed before hand, you cant have something out of utterly nothing.

 

that was a lucky guess.... they just assumed there was 1 landmass out of ignorance more then knowlege. they didnt know it (scientifically with evidence)

But if they had scientifical evidence there wouldn´t be anything special at sayng this...

 

as for the universe having a begining... what was before that?... elements must have existed somewhere... the big bang explains this phase of the universes life but it existed before hand, you cant have something out of utterly nothing.

Acording to some scientists it can... or at least matter can come from something that is not material. And its scientifically wrong to say something existed BEFORE the big bang because acording to this theory the dimension known as time was "created" in this event, so there can´t be a "before". As my knowledge about all this stuff is obviously small I just googled it and found:

 

What was God doing before he created the world? The philosopher and writer (and later saint) Augustine posed the question in his "Confessions" in the fourth century, and then came up with a strikingly modern answer: before God created the world there was no time and thus no "before." To paraphrase Gertrude Stein, there was no "then" then.

 

Until recently no one could attend a lecture on astronomy and ask the modern version of Augustine's question - what happened before the Big Bang? - without receiving the same frustrating answer, courtesy of Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity, which describes how matter and energy bend space and time.

 

Nevertheless, most cosmologists, including Dr. Guth and Dr. Linde, agree that the universe ultimately must come from somewhere, and that nothing is the leading candidate.

 

http://www.tomcoyner.com/before_the_big_bang_there_was__.htm it´s a transcription on an article from the New York times.

 

 

 

It doesn´t matter if homossexuality is natural or not, as long as it´s something done among adult persons with free consent, without causing damage to anyone then it should be tolerated,

 

I have to comment on JJN's posts here... thankyou for your 'tolerance' - but you make it sound more like 'sufferance'. I don't ask to be 'tolerated' - why should I? Don't gay people have equal rights - exactly the same as straight people? Do I 'tolerate' straight people? No - they just exist as far as I'm concerned, exactly the same as gay people. Tolerance is a word used to accept something that don't particularly feel is palatable or feel particularly comfortable with - a message I seem to be getting from your numerous posts here.

 

As for the question regarding gay marriage - as in, why bother.. the reasons are simple.... gay couples, until recently, were not recognised by law, as in, if a lover died, the remaining half of the couple had zero rights over things like estates, inheritance - absurd, really, and it sent a damaging message that no, gay people were not equal with sdtraight people - in this day and age, simply ludicrous.

 

As for gays being born gay - I don't agree. At all.

 

Sexuality is fluid, whether the gays or straights among us here like that fact or not. OK, many people will never fulfill their sexual abilities to sleep with both sexes - some do, most don't. Your sexuality is determined by the society you live in. In Roman times, it was commonplace for men to have male lovers for pleasure, women lovers for children. Don't you think it's strange in these supposedly 'modern' times, when homosexuality is still 'tolerated' and 'suffered' as opposed to fully accepted as a normal way of life for some, that this attitude has changed? Isn't it rather bizarre that humans have altered their sexuiality so much? It was the norm then - what's different now? ATTITUDES to sexuality, that's what's different - homosexuality was taboo for many hundreds of years, mainly thanks to the crazy religious brigade.... and even today, people balk at the notion that EVERYONE is inherently bisexual, however abhorrent that may seem.

 

Humans are sexual beings - life-term prisoners, for example, who are "100% heterosexual" on the outside, within time, become suddenly 'bisexual' - it's the norm.

 

Why should things be any different in the outside world?