MO bans *** marriage

[uncle_el]

very informative zigen...

i meant semantics for incomplete vs. complete new testament in the sense that it couldn't possibly contain every story ever written... but i see what you meant now, as far as the books/gospels that were okayed at the meeting (i believe it was the 1st councel of nicea... but i may be wrong, it's been quite a few years since i studied this).

idk... i see what you mean, there are plenty of other stories out there that people can read, they're just not easily/readily found. i think the thing is, regardless of whether you're christian or not, is to try and read these if they interest you.

i used to have a girlfriend who said she only believed what was in the bible, nothing more (as far as her standard for christian religion is concerned), and i told her that was bad, because there are plenty of things that happened outside of the bible that are definitely true, but still shape who those people were in the bible, and who we are today. while one can use the bible as a guide, it is not necessarily the only tool that one should use for his/her life.

this is an interesting thread, as many people have varying thoughts, but it's all nice and civil. very nice.

and akrodha, i didn't know jc was the "*** capital of the world"... all i know is that i live in the "*** capital" of atlanta (downtown/midtown) and it's really changed my perspective on things, i think for the better.

[YourSuperior]

I, for one, am opposed to homosexial marriage. I kind of take marriage more serious than most people i guess. Its not just joining two people together, but 2 whole different families that are not related by blood. This is why I also am opposed to marrying your own relative or your own blood. I do have mixed feelings about government using the Bible as a guide. Some people could also argue that the government shouldn't make it illegal to kill another person or animal if it is part of their religion. I believe a better solution is to bind homosexial partners by law only, that way they would have the same benefits as married couples.

[mixmatch]

civil unions are not quite the same in legal terms as marriage is so they will probably still not have full benefits as a husband-wife couple

marriage itself is a government ideal as to promote a civil nation. with that said the more married people the better. however those overly religious/conservative people who oppose *** marriages argue intensely over it when it shouldnt even be an issue. people are gonna b *** whether they are married or not so if they do happen to b lucky enough to find someone they want to marry then they should have every right to. denying them that right is discrimination on the part of the goverment. it actually used to be illegal for a white person to marry a black person back in the 60s in some states but through changes in society, interracial marriages are more common and are legal. so maybe in the next few years/decades society will change again so people arent so bent over backwards against *** marriages

i think that the main reason ppl are against it is cuz if gays are allowed to marry each other, then that would be the same thing as admitting its okay to be ***. people need to realise 99% of *** ppl didnt choose to be ***....i mean who would choose that and choose to be made into a social outcast?