Special Rights based on Sexual Orientation and a Lifestyle

Post Reply New Topic

And you sound like an idiot believing God should care for atheists who don't submit to or believe in Him.

Also you shouldn't follow God if you have such dimwitted views about Him.


Hmm, came across a bit harsh (not intended). In either case, I don't advocate theocracy. I do not advocate adhering to shastras as I find it completely mindless, but shariah sounds interesting.

Last edited by oscuria on 02 Aug 2008, 11:50 pm, edited 2 times in total.

.

The majority always wins, it is supposed to win, and if you want to fix that issue, you can't do it officially or complaining, it will happen like this, whether you are an Aspie, gay or a Mexican in a Cuban hood, the majority will get the rules rigged for them. Get used to it.

Oh, the thread. I forgot.

I'm still don't agree with same-sex marriage. Marriage seems too strong a word. I guess I really see no point in marriage for the majority of people who do marry either.

My views are not dimwitted for being different from yours. Please show how they are dimwitted if you're going to assert that.

God is supposed to be an all loving entity. Not loving people who don't think he exists runs contrary to that claim. Either God isn't who he is alleged to be, or he doesn't hate people.

I'm curious, if belief in God is the only thing that matters, why bother doing anything? Why not just hole yourself up in a monastery and pray all day? If you really believe that all is worthless except belief, why waste your time on life?

I believe you stated that you are an atheist, correct me if I'm wrong. How can an atheist know what God is and is not? Tell me whence comes this wonderful knowledge? In scripture I read references of the Lord destroying cities inhabited by thousands and thousands of people. Since you know what God is rectify this seeming contradiction for me.

Since man cannot sit idle forever a sense of work and duty enters his mind upon which that man must perform. If I bother not doing anything what would I accomplish? Also where is the difference in praying inside a monastery and meditating at home? If I must hole myself in a temple to be nearer to God it would mean that God is not omnipresent after all.

The only time wasted in life is the one spent not remembering the Lord

Shariah is evil. It's neolithic, barbaric. I don't think anyone here would want that.

Not all of Shariah is evil, equally so not all of it is based on the Quran. The Islamic jurors would rather spend time on building laws from illegitimate fables than on authoritative text. Sadly, few rarely question source.

What do you mean?

The Quran states that the punishment for adultery committed by a slave woman is half the punishment committed by a free couple which is 100 lashes. If it was stoning to death, how can it be halved? The hadiths however narrate that Muhammad stoned adulterers to death and was quite unrepentant about it. The Hadiths also narrate how the reason for it came to be, which is a fairly ridiculous. In any case unrevealed scripture cannot abrogate revealed scripture. Thinking so is nonsense. It is like the writings of Paul abrogating the words of Jesus. Lesser authority will always be below that of higher authoritative texts. Islamic scholars and jurors however spend much of their time deciphering information found in the hadith (whose origins are unknown but legend states come directly from Muhammad) than on the Quran.

The reason given by Islamic apologetics is that the Quran states everyone should follow the words of the Prophet without hesitation. I consider this absurd in that one should take God above anyone else, not to mention it is found in the Quran that we should never accept things blindly.

I'm glad you think so, Oscuria.

Government should not be in the marriage racket in the first place. The only legitimate function of government would be to ratify "domestic partnership" contracts, which could be entered into by consenting adults able to otherwise enter into contractual obligations.

Marriage or not would be an affair handled entirely by non-state concerns with no attendant legal privileges attached.

So gays/lesbians should be married by the state and not by the church? I think that is totally the right way to go. If it's just a legal thing, gay marriage isn't a headache for the church.

NOBODY AT ALL SHOULD BE MARRIED BY THE STATE! The state should only recognize "domestic partnership contracts" that cover all current property, custody, access, etc. legal elements currently handled by "marriage". Marriage, which should carry NO LEGAL STATUS, would be recognized or not by private organizations.

Of course, I meant "domestic partnership" and not "marriage." But if any gays or lesbians feel they need a religious ceremony, they may be SOL. If we are going to have domestic partnerships for same-sex couples and reserve marriages for traditional couples. By the way, it's very impolite to SHOUT.

It may be impolite, but it's often the only way to get the point across to the stubbornly ignorant. Domestic partnerships would be for EVERYBODY. If you want any of the current legal perquisites of marriage (property, insurance, custody, etc.), then you would have to get a domestic partnership. Marriage would be entirely optional and a purely private affair WITH NO LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS AT ALL. The government would not handle divorces (dissolution of marriage). However, divorces would not have legally-binding property or custody settlements, either. Instead dissolutions of domestic partnerships would have legally-binding property and custody settlements.

Marriage would NOT BE RECOGNIZED BY THE STATE AT ALL. It would have no legal existence--or no more legal existence than membership in the "Happy Fun Time Super Decoder Ring Club" would have. And there are religious institutions around that would be happy to marry any two (or three, four, five, etc.) consenting adults if it weren't prohibited by law.

Stubbornly ignorant?

Nein.