I have. Homosexual acts are a sin. Not urges, but acts.

@Invictus, I'd point out that the Supreme court HAS ruled on matters of marriage within a state. In the Loving Vs. Virginia decision they ruled that states could not stop interracial marriages.

They also stated in the decision this gem... "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man."

Surely, a persons sex should be just as irrelevant, in the eyes of the government as a persons race to their equal protection under the law.

So actually... The Supreme court has ruled on Marriage, has said that states can't discriminate on the basis of a classification of those entering into it, and used the 14th amendment to do it. While it doesn't directly address gender, to my eyes it's a fairly strong precedent.

Tetra0: Evolution is more than "just a theory". It is mathematically proven (evolutionary biology and mathematics are actually quite happy bedfellows!) to work under the assumption of any heritable genetic variation; furthermore, it's been directly observed during the last century by experimentally introducing artificial selection in species with short generation times. Pathogens are a great example of this: whereas penicillin used to be something of a magic cure for any bacterial infection, it's all but worthless now. Those infections that CAN be killed from penicillin almost invariably need modified versions of penicillin; the original simply does not work. Another prime example of observed evolution comes from Medically-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA), a major problem in some American hospitals. By exposure to one antibiotic after another, a strain of Staphylococcus aureus has been artificially selected for resistance to all of them, and it's reached the point where medical treatment of this strain requires amputation.

Sure, evolution hasn't been so easily and directly observed in vertebrates like ourselves, but with generation times on the order of years it's not something that we can observe on human timescales. A century would allow perhaps six generations of humans, but only if they're Irish. By contrast, E. coli can double its population thrice in an hour. Clearly the better candidate for evolutionary studies is the microbe, although results of the studies can easily be extrapolated to comprehend other biological phyla.

@ Invictus... I am Christian. It's not a sin. Homosexual act is not a sin and is defined nowhere in the Bible as such. Not in the Old testament, not by Jesus.

Okay, I have to leave for the day. Look, I completely respect your individual feelings and issues, but this is about a people who have done nothing wrong. I'll get back on you tomorrow about this.

On a note, Christian sin is not necessarily illegal to the Constitution.

@Invictus - I actually have to say I haven't heard you actually make a legal argument yet, all you've done is criticize the way that the right has been affirmed in many states, and argued that states have the right to regulate marriage. I would still like to hear an argument that doesn't rely on personal morality or religion as to why this right should be extended to some people, and not others based on the sex of the participants.

Invictus, I'm a christian, but I support Gay marriage. Don't argue christian beliefs if you dont know where they come from. Leviticus 18:22 is where the notion of homosexuality being a sin comes from. Leviticus 18:19, no having sex wit5h mentrating women. earlier in the book it speaks about pork and shell fish consumptions as abominations. Surely you dont think these are as bad as Gay Marriage do you? The faithful dont even understand the message of their own book. (I was using the King James Version).

Equality before the Law. Religion should not be involved in the affairs of the state. If gays wnat to marry, who am I to deny them this right? why should I have this right and not them? Thats an important question I think, what have I done to deserve more rights under the law than a homosexual couple?

I think gay marriage will be harder. Just the biology makes it different than interracial marriages.

If, if gay marriage were allowed, then all kinds of marriage would have to be. Polygamy prohibition couldn't stand once gay marriage came. Even incestuous marriages would have to go, maybe even up to sibling-sibling and parent-child. And once those doors are down it isn't too much of a stretch for human-animal marriages. That isn't as crazy as it looks, there's a surprisingly strong movement for Great Ape Personhood, and if apes were people surely we can't restrict their rights.

And the 14th Amendment (Equal Protection, maintgallant) could work against gay marriage. Why should these people get a different kind of marriage just because of their gender? That doesn't seem like equal protection under the law. Of course, I'm not in law school yet so the argument might not be perfect.

I'm Catholic so to me it IS a sin. Church tradition = Scripture. That's just where I'm coming from.

Invictus, I would also aid to your "homosexual acts are sins" that lust is also a sin, no matter where. I should hope you never lust after a women, because if you do, bad things will happen. I bet you lie too, thats also a sin. Ever stolen? Sin. No sin is worse than another sin, unless your catholic, but that opens a whole new realm of things to discuss. But even if it is a sin, as you believe, it is still acceptable. You are no better under christian doctrine.

Of course I sin. Everyone sins, but that doesn't make it right.

I was challenged to use Christian doctrine, I never wanted to.

Ah you are catholic. I have one question, as I dont know the answer, does the church still forbide sexual acts that dont result in pregnancy? Or contraceptive use for that matter?

Im not debating here, im just looking for answers.

Yeah., at least contraception. I think married couples can do most things but I'm not sure. But as long as you feel bad about it you can go to Confession!

And as long as I'm still not sure it isn't a sin. Ignorance of the LORD is an excuse.

It's a pun.

It's not actually that simple. Willful ignorance is bad.

@maintgallant
"The issues that people have with it are constitutionally and morally bogus. It's a clear case of a culture exercising its power over another with very little background but their own selfishness. Jesus wouldn't sanction it, why are we?"

Why is it constitutionally bogus?
Why is it morally bogus?

@cteno4
When speaking about evolution, are you speaking about things that evolve, change, mutate over time; or are you speaking about that instance in "time" when miraculously the first single cell "animal" came into being and survived? And from this one single cell "animal" ALL other life on this planet evolved?

Speaking of scientific theory: to the learned among us, at what point (chance of happening) does something become so remotely possible that scientist consider it not possible?

I'm talking about evolution, not biogenesis. The origin of life is an entirely separate question that evolutionary biology is completely ill-prepared to address... although if you want a well-established and non-religious hypothesis to explain the origins of life, you would be well served to go look at research done at submarine hydrothermal vents.

@ Invictus: THANK YOU! I know it was a million posts ago, but I think you got it right with what you said about the Bible. I love the stories in the Bible, it's wonderful mythology and has excellent commentaries on the 'human condition'. but I don't believe for a second that Moses parted the red sea with his staff (and I'm Jewish), just as I don't believe for a second that Jesus walked on water. What you must remember when reading the Bible is that it is more or less an anthology of various mythologies and stories that were around long before Jesus (the Old Testament at least, and even many parts of the New Testament), and that anything being said in either Testament, is done so from those in cultures that had their own understanding of morality and social classes. The same Bible that tells us Gays are an abomination also insists that women are little more than property and slaves.

@ cteno4: Granted I do accept evolution and natural selection as a more-or-less correct understanding of life on this planet, but I have hard time believing that there's mathematical proof of it (I'm not calling you a liar, or anything. I actually find this stuff facinating and would love you to explain it). Also it's not clear whether organisms like bacteria develop immunities through and evolutionary process. Even in TB cases, an individual infection can become immune to it's treatment if the patient stops medicating for even a few weeks. Most evolutionary changes, even on a microscopic level, occur over millennia, not weeks. So it's not really certain whether it was this process that lead to the bacteria's development or a separate chemical alteration within them.

@ Invictus & Philcore: The problem is that even the term "Marrige" is a legally identified term. So as along as the word itself is recognized as having legal viability, the government has no right to disallow it based on sexual orientation. And to say that lettting gays get married is comparable to allowing childeren or siblings to get married is REDICULUS! Siblings and children aren't allowed to get married for thier own well-being and that of their potential children. It's a matter of protection, not discrimination. Who would the government be protecting by not allowing gay marrige? (besides those who think they own the word). Say the gov't instituted a policy that granted all white people a free car every decade: they would call it WhiteCar-ing. Then the non-whites in the country get angry and demand they get WhiteCar-ing too. "Well" say the conservatives "We'd love to let you have WhitCar, but unfortunately the defninition of it states that you must be white...sorry". The point is that just because something already has a defninition, does not give the gov't a right to abide by it if it is discriminatory.

@ Philcore: You are right, I did generalize a bit by saying 'republicans' and 'conservatives'. However, as DrOct put so well, support for something does not make it not rediculus. At the begining of WWI, 84% of Germany was all for the war, including intellectuals and even many of Einstien's collegues. That doesn't mean that WWI wasn't 'rediculus shit'. "Laws shall be established to protect the weak from the strong". I don't care if 99% of America thinks gays shouldn't get married or 'marrige' shouldn't be redifined, it doesn't make it right. Also, I'm all for keeping marrige and it's defninition the same, but in that case the gov't needs to recognize a new term in its stead. It's not the place of our legal sysyem to sanction secular cultural agendas.

I'm happy to have put it the Bible in the right way for you. While I do believe that things like Jesus walking on water happened, they don't NEED to have happened to be true. This might not make sense but it is faith, after all.

I can't say I support even the logic behind your other post, but that mostly because you spelled ridiculous "REDICULUS" and that's my number one pet peeve.

@Tetra0
If gay marriage is legal, but incestuous marriages are not, what about polygamy or pedophilic marriages? Although, I believe that people of the Jewish faith are allowed to marry first-cousins in the state of New York.

Polygamy was once legal within parts of the US, and still is in some parts of the world.

You can legally marry as young as 13 in some US states. In the 1800's early aged marriages were quite common. In some parts of the world, marriages under 13 are still common.

Whom are you quoting here, "Laws shall be established to protect the weak from the strong."?

@anyone
People speak about the separation of church and state, but no where in the US Constitution, US Declaration of Independence, nor the US Bill of Rights does is speak of the "separation of church and state". In fact, the only occurrence of the word "religion" in the three documents above is in Article III of the Bill of Rights, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Well said. Freedom of religion does not mean suppressing displays of religion in favor or atheism.

Separation of church and state really just means the government can't give money to religious institutions for religious uses.

Well of course separation of church and state doesn't mean suppressing displays of religion (by individuals, or private organizations), but I'm not sure how that's relevant to the current discussion...

regardless it's Friday night and I really should be doing other things than debating on the internet.

On the other hand...
http://xkcd.com/386/

@ TheMasterGamer: I'm not sure how those facts counter my point. Really I think it supports me. So you think that a 13 year old should be married before an adult gay couple? I think it's terrible that kind of thing is legal in the US, but how does that refute gays' right to marry? Pedophilic marriages are a terrible thing, and polygamy I think is only a shame because of the way the wives are often treated. I don't, however, think there's anything intrinsically wrong about it.

Also, I was quoting Hammurabi's Code. But, do you not agree with this?

@ Invictus: Sorry for misspelling 'ridiculous', I was running late by the time I wrote most of my post, and sort of sped through the rest.

Also, what about the marital tax breaks alloted by the gov't. Does that not count as giving money to an institution based on the religious dogmas?

I'm pretty sure it isn't legal to marry a 13 year old anywhere in the US. Considering the age of consent is 16-17 depending on the state getting married at 13 seems impossible. Have I made a mistake? There are several countries in the mid-east that have very young ages where people can get marred though. I think its 9 in one of them.

Also, IMO polygamous relationships are fine as long as all members are consenting adults. Cultures which lead to polygamy being common generally have other route causes of spousal abuse. It isn't polygamy itself that is the problem.

I do believe there should be laws in place to prevent underage children being exploited but gay marriage isn't exploitation. Its two people deciding they want to live together. Two consenting adults deciding they want to live together for the rest of their life and gain the benefits of running a family.

New Hampshire still allows a female to marry at age 13 with parental consent. There are several states that do the same for 14 year olds. Btw, males in New Hampshire can marry no younger than 14.

What is an under aged child? Isn't that something that is arbitrarily assigned by the state as well?

What about extending benefits to non-married persons who share the same household? 2 buddies who share a place together, have know each other a very long time. Should one be able to receive the health care benefits offered to the other via the work place? What about adult children living with a parent who works? Should that child be able to receive health care benefits as well? Exactly what is the difference between a gay couple living together and a close couple of friends living together and sharing expenses?

@Tetra0
"That the strong might not injure the weak, in order to protect the widows and orphans, I have in Babylon the city where Anu and Bel raise high their head, in E-Sagil, the Temple, whose foundations stand firm as heaven and earth, in order to declare justice in the land, to settle all disputes, and heal all injuries, set up these my precious words, written upon my memorial stone, before the image of me, as king of righteousness."

I would say this does not exactly mean the same thing. Nor would I agree that laws should be established to protect the weak from the strong just because.

However, this does point out the basic problem. The problem is the reason and the reasoning behind any law, and how the state and the people decide and defend such.

The age of consent is defined by the governing body. It is arbitrary but so what? Its the age a society defines as unable to make their own decisions. IMO it should be respected as such.

Also, a gay couple making the commitments a marriage requires entitles them to the benefits. The difference between a gay couple and two friends is the valid (in the terms of mainstream religion) sexual relationship and the creation of a family unit. The fact that you dismiss a gay couple as equatable to two friends is simply willful ignorance.

Two buddies who share a place together could reap the benefits if they make that commitment without a homosexual relationship. Why is that a problem? By that logic a man and a woman who happen to be heterosexual could pull the same thing now. Its a inane issue.