So if we are banning homosexuality in California based on writings in the big book of jewish fairy tales, then we need to ban shellfish as well. Because god hates shrimp! Its all laid out for you right there in the big book of jewish fairy tales.

I personally like shrimp.

Distorting the discussion is a common tactic (on both sides) that doesn't help anything. Homosexuals may continue in their homosexual acts without any interference by government.

That isn't the point I don't believe. The point is that the citizens of California are denying homosexual couples equality based on writings from a fictional tale. So following your logic, shrimp can keep shrimping, you just cant eat them.

I am not distorting anything. Its all there for you. I dont want the lobster to stop being a lobster. I just want Californians to stop eating them.

I like lobster too.

I think from their perspective it's more about preserving the sanctity of marriage. And from my perspective it's about prejudices acquired at an early age.

I agree those who cite Leviticus as though it should represent a justification have little to back them up. But then, there are people who respond to imperious Biblical claims, who do not respond as readily to other appeals.

Especially when those Biblical claims back up their underlying biases.

Sanctity of marriage as defined by Judeo-Christian belief.

Leviticus 11:9-12 says:
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Scriptures in question for lazy people.

I understand it is about the sanctity of marriage. But my point is - who determines what marriage is? The people are using the bible to make that determination - and that is just wrong. What about the sanctity of religious beliefs? We cant push one religions views on society as a whole. Its just ludicrous.

The people of California? Just a shot in the dark here.......

It was what you call a rhetorical question, but thanks for the useless smartass reply. And I am assuming you can read, but just after that rhetorical question I clearly state - "the people are using the bible to make that determination" - this is clearly in reference to the voters of California. So please - next time you roll up into my thread bring something to the table. thank you.

As much as I support liberty, isn't marriage a Judeo-Christian concept in the first place? Personally I don't think state should even license and "regulate" marraige. Let people do whatever the **** they want.

I don't think this is anywhere close to true. The Chinese have a concept of marriage, for example. And historically, that has been a male-female concept.

It's not a Judeo-Christian concept.

But I agree with your general point. Which is why I think it's ludicrous for the government to make a law saying that homosexual marriages aren't real marriages.

My thinking is:

Government not getting involved: Ideal
Government supporting all marriages: Okay
Government supporting some marriages and declaring the rest illegitimate: Nasty

1) Your repeated assertion of the factual basis of the Bible requires some (actually, somewhat significant) justification.

2) Notice how you switched from "banning homosexuality" to "denying homosexual couples" of something. It would require a bit of justification to claim that this is not a distortion.

3) You also have to make an argument that the only people opposed to gay marriage are taking their cue from the Old Testament as opposed to having other reasons (such as the government shouldn't even be in the marriage business in the first place).

"Chinese marriage became a custom between 402-221 B.C. Despite China's long history and many different geographical areas, there are basically six rituals, generally known as the three letters and six etiquette"

I agree, but at the same time government has to be involved from a regulatory standpoint. We have to determine this for legal purposes of all sorts. Inheritance, insurance, etc. Unfortunate, but true.

You should be a little more careful. This came under the heading

The "custom" of marriage here is referring to the formalized ritual of marriage, not the actual marriages.

So the concept of marriage within that culture goes back to at least 5000 BC.

1) You can't prove god exists, therefore his "inspired word" is fictional.

2)OK - please explain how I am distorting anything. We all know what prop 8 was - this is semantics. I apologize for my zealousness - it caused me to improperly convey my thoughts. But you get the point, and there is not distortion.

3) That doesn't even make sense. The entire bill was based on the fact that marriage is regulated and the definition of a marriage and who will be able to enjoy the benefits of a recognized marriage. So to say that people voted no because they are against all marriage being regulated is a really big step - and I am positive you have ZERO facts to back that claim.

Why should this stuff be based on marriage?

Because society made it so. Let me give you an example. A man is dying and the doctor needs permission to do a dangerous procedure. In a majority of states a spouse can give that permission, but not a significant other.

I dont like it, but those are the facts. The requirement and recognition of marriage is written into the laws of modern society - its everywhere. It sucks, but its true.

All it requires is for people to be able to give that legal authority to anyone they so choose.

You cannot disprove his existence. You cannot argue simply out of ignorance. You should also go seek out how much of the secular world uses the Old Testament as an historical artifact that points to historic places. This is even more prominent when taking the New Testament under the archaeological microscope.

You still don't get it. If you mis-represent the situation by a large amount, it's a distortion.

Point to where I made this claim:

I am suggesting that there are explanations other than the one you provided, and therefore you need to provide evidence that you are correct in your assertion.

And Ann Rice used New Orleans as a setting for Interview with a Vampire. She points to real places and buildings in her vampire books. This does not make the vampires real. You are trying to say that because babylon existed, that all the other mythological crap happened? So because we can find archeological sites that were written about in the bible - sticks turned into snakes???? That makes sense.

ur pretty smart huh? quite clever, I'd be very funny if the truth about most of you here was knowledge available anywhere so we could all laugh at the decisions you have made and the current state of your life.

I prolly wouldn't choose to be "that guy" who mocks someone elses circumstances, like on forums, but it would be humorous none the less to hear people explain circumstances they obviously understand better than who aren't them and didn't live their life but have to be like yeh that was dumb or defend certain things, which people will respond, what makes you different than this guy.

blah blah blah.

all a waste of time.
peace.