Good Lord

[cycloneworld]

What's been keeping men and women from doing this as it is now? That's why I don't like that argument against homosexual marriages.

Also Wonkadog, I think human relationships are just a tad bit different than a man and his dog. (The dog can't consent)

Two things IMO:
1. Most people believe that marriage is sacred. This is greatly dimished if we let any two people get married.
2. Right now, only a man and a woman can marry...with homosexual marriages you now allow man and man and woman and woman. The number of marriages could potentially triple.

 

[isucyfan]

I would like somebody that is of the evolutionist train of thought to try to explain this to me: if we actually evolved slowly from monkeys, then why are there no "part man/part monkeys" out there and everything in between. Now before you respond with the simple "Natural Selection" comment, I would like to know how it was apparently in the monkeys' best interests to evolve into humans, but there are still monkeys? It just seems to me that if this really happened there would either be some evidence of beings in between the two, or no monkeys and all humans. Riddle me this?

The fossil record is admittedly incomplete. Such a discovery could, in fact, be on the horizon. Recently, a fossil fish was discovered that was clearly a marine fish, but had "legs" that allowed it to walk on land as well. There are hypothetically many fossils out there that can show these links.

Here is the missing (internet) link:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0405_060405_fish.html

 

[Cyclone62]

Two things IMO:
1. Most people believe that marriage is sacred. This is greatly dimished if we let any two people get married.
2. Right now, only a man and a woman can marry...with homosexual marriages you now allow man and man and woman and woman. The number of marriages could potentially triple.

For point 1: That doesn't keep the people who would only get married for benefits from doing it. The fact that people can get married, as long as it's only a man and a woman, for any reason other than religion has already diminished the sacredity of marriage.

2: The numbers could triple, and so could divorce rates. But I don't see that happening. I think the LGTB community is quite small in comparison to the heterosexual community, so the numbers probably won't even double. Also, what would we say if the government enacted a law that stated you couldn't marry until you were 30? That would make the "sacredity" of the marriage stronger, but that would be an infringement on our rights, so it wouldn't pass. Why can't the LGBT community have that same right?

 

[CyGal]

History is not my strong suit, but I took a History of the Bible class in college, and our professor said that they've actually found archaelogical evidence to support a flood that would have covered all of the ancient discovered world (I think its Mesopatamia?). I always thought that was interesting to think about that it might have covered up that whole area (which actually was their world) in the time of Noah.

I actually saw a show on the Discovery channel about the flood - there was one in Mesopatamia, but it wasn't nearly as large as the flood I was taught about in bible school. And the whole story on the Discovery channel was much more believable and based on solid facts than the tale spun in the bible. Someone took a story out of context and expanded and embellished and that's why I was taught what I was taught when I was kid.

 

[isucyfan]

I am conflicted on the topic of evolution, as it seems scientifically valid, yet I am reminded daily that a great percentage of Hawkeyes have failed to continue to evolve.:biggrin9gp:

For you creationists, how do you explain Hawkeyes? If they were made in God's own image, then we are in trouble.:laugh8kb:

 

[cycloneworld]

For point 1: That doesn't keep the people who would only get married for benefits from doing it. The fact that people can get married, as long as it's only a man and a woman, for any reason other than religion has already diminished the sacredity of marriage.

2: The numbers could triple, and so could divorce rates. But I don't see that happening. I think the LGTB community is quite small in comparison to the heterosexual community, so the numbers probably won't even double. Also, what would we say if the government enacted a law that stated you couldn't marry until you were 30? That would make the "sacredity" of the marriage stronger, but that would be an infringement on our rights, so it wouldn't pass. Why can't the LGBT community have that same right?

The LGTB may be small but allowing marriage to ANYONE is a huge number of people. If the government allowed anyone to get married...I would bet that the value of marriage in many, many people's minds will be greatly diminished. If this happens, it could lead to more and more people marrying soley for the financial benefits. If that happens, the government will have to increase taxes to the married couples to recover the lost revenue. Ultimately....when people don't value or find marriage sacred anymore and with no financial benefits, what is the point of getting married anymore?

 

[isucyfan]

I actually saw a show on the Discovery channel about the flood - there was one in Mesopatamia, but it wasn't nearly as large as the flood I was taught about in bible school. And the whole story on the Discovery channel was much more believable and based on solid facts than the tale spun in the bible. Someone took a story out of context and expanded and embellished and that's why I was taught what I was taught when I was kid.

Ever play the "Telephone Game" as a child?? This could explain many parts of the Bible, IMO. Monks were the ones who transcribed the scriptures before printing presses, and it is thought that some could have exercised editorial license to suit their own agenda. Just another theory.

 

[cycloneworld]

For you creationists, how do you explain Hawkeyes? If they were made in God's own image, then we are in trouble.:laugh8kb:

They ate the forbidden apple.

 

[CyGal]

Tale? The flood can be proved. How would you explain the fossilized remains of marine life that have been found on top of EVERY major mountain range in the world?

First off, I've never heard anything about marine life on EVERY major mountain range. Second, it's impossible. There isn't enough water on this Earth to cover all of the land, and even if there was, the humidity in the air would be so high that Noah and his family would not be able to survive - unless of course you know of a way we can all evolve in to fish with gills and flippers. The only possible way for there to be enough water on Earth to cover everything would be a massive meteor fell from the sky - in which case Noah and his family still probably wouldn't have survived - and there's no proof that that happened either.

 

[CyGal]

That's what I think you're missing. Those that belive in God and his limitless/mind blowing power have absolutely no problem believing that. It doesn't sway someone who believes in God to say that it would be too hard/impossible for humans. That's exactly the point, it took God to keep those animals alive.

In that case, why build the arc at all? God could have just as easily wiped out civilization without a flood or all the effort Noah would have had to go through to build his arc for an impossible number of animals.

 

[isucyfan]

I know it was mentioned here before, but it is worth repeating. We are now over 100 posts on a hybrid topic of cartoons and religion, and there has been no animus shown or venom spewed. Kudos.

 

[cyQlone]

Christians are up by 3 with 20 seconds left on the clock!

The reason creationism is hard to believe is because in our world, EVERYTHING has a beginning and an end. It's hard for us to grasp the concept that God always was because everything we see had a beginning and will eventually have an end. But if we think of it that way(reguardless if you're a christian and believe that God created the universe, or if you aren't and think the earth and planets were created from a huge explosion in space, or whatever other belief you have), that everything is created, you eventually have to say, everything was created by something else. And you can keep going back and saying "d" was created by "c" and "c" was created by "b", and "b" was created by "a" and eventually you get to something that always was.

It's really hard to explain this because it's hard to wrap our minds around it. I mean, if you look at a family tree... well I was created by my parents, who were created by their parents, and were created by their parents, etc etc. Well eventually it gets to the point of the first person that was. And that same principle can be used to argue this.

Eventually you trace everything back to 1 thing that always was. God said that he is the beginning and end. God always was.

 

[isucyfan]

Christians are up by 3 with 20 seconds left on the clock!

Wait a minute, Willis Darwin is now limping onto the floor!

 

[jparker22]

How can the Christians not win this one? Most of us are Christians we just have varied views within the religion.

 

[CyGal]

Ever play the "Telephone Game" as a child?? This could explain many parts of the Bible, IMO. Monks were the ones who transcribed the scriptures before printing presses, and it is thought that some could have exercised editorial license to suit their own agenda. Just another theory.

That's exactly who I take everything there with a grain of salt.

 

[Cyclone62]

As it stands now, technically anyone can get married anyway. They just have to be over 18, and a man to a woman. If the portion of the community that would be allowed to get married is small to begin with, how will it have an impact of tripling the marriage rates? Also, polygomy is legal in Utah; so the sacred nature of marriage is diminished there. Just saying that something can happen because of homosexual marriages gaining legality doesn't mean that it will.

I understand what you're saying about some people beleiving that the sacredity of marriage could become diminished, but as I see it, it would be a sacred thing for the people getting married. Isn't that the point? I honestly don't hold your marriage as something that's sacred; it may be sacred to you, but my marriage is what will be sacred to me. I think that as long as there are "loopholes" for heterosexual couples, the same right should be granted to homosexuals as well. If two people (hetero or homosexual) make a committment to be with each other, that will only be sacred to those two people; not really those around them.

Anyone else remember the gay couple that lived next door to Kevin Spacey in "American Beauty"? They were practically "married," just not in the government's eyes. That kind of discrimination is what our government should have nothing to do with. It also used to illegal for an African American to marry a Caucasian, but it became legal. Did that move invalidate the sacredity of marriage? Maybe to some people at the time, but not to the interracial couples involved. Same issue is here today. When it gains legality (I'm fairly sure it will sometime soon), people will still look down on it; that will never really change, but it will show that the government isn't being discriminatory against HUMAN BEINGS in our country.

 

[Cyclonepride]

For you creationists, how do you explain Hawkeyes? If they were made in God's own image, then we are in trouble.:laugh8kb:

Hawk fans do more to support Darwinism. They are the missing link.

 

[jbhtexas]

So the only reason to believe the Bible is the Word of God is to have a basis for your faith? Christianity is about having a personal relationship with Christ, not about looking up rules in a book that you decide for no logical reason is the God's word.

2 Tim 3:16 (16) Every scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, (17) that the person dedicated to God may be capable and equipped for every good work.

How do you know that you need to have a personal relationship with Christ?

 

[Cyclone62]

How can the Christians not win this one? Most of us are Christians we just have varied views within the religion.

By God coming down and telling us all that he doesn't exist. Wait a minute... I just hit a paradox! ::Head goes BOOM!::

 

[cycloneworld]

As it stands now, technically anyone can get married anyway. They just have to be over 18, and a man to a woman. If the portion of the community that would be allowed to get married is small to begin with, how will it have an impact of tripling the marriage rates? Also, polygomy is legal in Utah; so the sacred nature of marriage is diminished there. Just saying that something can happen because of homosexual marriages gaining legality doesn't mean that it will.

Right now...only a man and a woman can marry. If we allow man and man + woman and woman, the marriage rates could triple...especially if the term marriage is so diminished that everyone is doing it just to gain the financial benefits.

I understand that doesn't mean it will happen but at the same time just saying something won't happen, doesn't mean that it won't. I'm just looking at the possible effects.