Ban organized religion, says Elton John

[Kobasew fan]

Originally Posted by photon

There's no direct evidence of a global flood (and lots of evidence against it). There's no evidence that the Hebrew people had a mass Exodus from Egypt, and no evidence half a million people wandered the Sinai for 40 years. Genisis mentions camels but they weren't widely used until 1000BC.

Just a few off the top of my head.

Like I had said, is there some conclusive evidence, since this is what everyone on this site seems to be looking for with respect to religions existence. In other words is there something that is a definate fact. Just to refute your evidence that there's not evidence that there was a world wide flood check out the following link.

[Looger]

bring on the one world religion!

embrace the new world order!

the age of aquarius is upon us!

oops, i've spilled it before project blue beam came to fruition...

[Azure]

Originally Posted by photon

Exactly, which is what I'm trying to find out about.. Large arguments are made by some religious organizations about gay marrige (in particular) to justify why they are trying to change the laws of a secular government. But given those arguments other laws should be under the same pressure from those same organizations. To me it seems that being selective just means that they have an agenda, same as everyone else

Yep.

And not only are they showing an agenda...but also they prove the hypocritical viewpoint that many non-religious people....accuse religious people of having.

Remarriage is okay..even by religious standards...but gay marriage isn't? Strange, strange.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Crazy Flamer

When a Christian website displays information on its website that has to do with supporting its views, it can be largely dismissed because the the huge motivating factor to prove itself right. Bias exists and therefore, the information presented is prejudicial and can be self serving. The information does not come form an objective source.

So an objective source would be your everyday..'non-religious' site..because they show NO bias?

Give me a break...there are many religious people out there...trying to be as objective as possible in regards to Biblical viewpoints.

But because of people like you...such people are instantly dismissed...because like you said...if they are religious..they hold an obvious bias.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

And the question will be asked once again, what do same sex marriages have to do with a bunch of straight people breaking up and kids living in single parent homes?

Absolutely nothing.

I've explained more times than I care to count. Privileges and special status means very little when they are extended to everybody. At that point they become a right. It is in everyones best interest to give heterosexual marriage the best chance we can. They are the unit which is biologically best equipped to pass down the distinctive values which make Canadians what we are.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by rubecube

So does that make me a sinner for wanting the old snippity-snip but still wishing to fornicate?

Come on Rube...some people are actually taking this thread seriously.

No need to post jerk type comments.

[FireFly]

Well instead of discriminating against the billions of people who choose to be part of organized religion and may or may not be against gay marriage, I say we take the democratic route... (majority rules) and discriminate against gays.

*shakes head*

It's ignorant either way.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by rubecube

So common-laws are sinners and are going to hell?

People go to hell because they refuse to turn from their sin to God. Both the sin of Homosexuality and the sin of fornication were paid for by Jesus Christ 2000 years ago.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I've explained more times than I care to count. Privileges and special status means very little when they are extended to everybody. At that point they become a right. It is in everyones best interest to give heterosexual marriage the best chance we can. They are the unit which is biologically best equipped to pass down the distinctive values which make Canadians what we are.

No No No.

You still have not explained how extending those rights to gays have any impact on what Heterosexuals do. None whatsoever.

The same people who were procreating before will still procreate, and the ones who were engaged in gay sex will continue to do so.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Well instead of discriminating against the billions of people who choose to be part of organized religion and may or may not be against gay marriage, I say we take the democratic route... (majority rules) and discriminate against gays.

*shakes head*

It's ignorant either way.

Not allowing Homosexuals to marry is not discrimination any more than not allowing celibate roommates the special benefits of marriage is discrimination.

Using your logic by giving Women maternity leave we discriminate against all those who can't have children.

[kipperfan]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I've explained more times than I care to count. Privileges and special status means very little when they are extended to everybody. At that point they become a right. It is in everyones best interest to give heterosexual marriage the best chance we can. They are the unit which is biologically best equipped to pass down the distinctive values which make Canadians what we are.

Are you kidding me with that line? What do you think, we allow gay marriage and suddenly droves of unhappy happy straight people will start running to the alter with people of the same sex, just figuring its worth a try?

We can debate religous issues for days, weeks, years....but Iam sorry there is no debate on this issue, certain people are gay, they are attracted to folks of the same sex....it is not a choice.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

It is in everyones best interest to give heterosexual marriage the best chance we can.

Who ever said otherwise?

People don't get married because of these inconsequential little benefits you keep harping on. Giving the same benefits to same-sex couples isn't going to change anything. It hasn't changed anything.

Who the hell wouldn't get married just because everyone else gets the same benefits?

"Gee honey, I'd love to get married and have kids, but since the gay couple gets the same deal, I don't think I'll bother".

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

No No No.

You still have not explained how extending those rights to gays have any impact on what Heterosexuals do. None whatsoever.

The same people who were procreating before will still procreate, and the ones who were engaged in gay sex will continue to do so.

The only reason why we should give out tax breaks and discounted insurance and the such is because of the benefit that institution brings to society. Perhaps you should explain to me why we offer these perks at all. I mean why is it fair that singles should have to bare a larger share of medical and taxes and even most company retirement plans? If you are living with someone you are already benefiting by combining utilities and meals and such. Why cater to married people at all? My answer is to encourage the procreating and raiseing of children by makeing a long term committment attractive and more profitable. What's your answer?

[photon]

Originally Posted by Kobasew fan

Just to refute your evidence that there's not evidence that there was a world wide flood check out the following link.

That's interesting.. But that doesn't give any evidence of a global flood, just of a local flood. Even the Answers in Genisis site agrees with that: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4168.asp
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/bseaflod.htm

I don't want to derail the thread any further though with flood talk. I haven't seen any evidence on those sites that is conclusive or hasn't been addressed. See the TalkOrigins for more info.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The only reason why we should give out tax breaks and discounted insurance and the such is because of the benefit that institution brings to society. Perhaps you should explain to me why we offer these perks at all. I mean why is it fair that singles should have to bare a larger share of medical and taxes and even most company retirement plans? If you are living with someone you are already benefiting by combining utilities and meals and such. Why cater to married people at all? My answer is to encourage the procreating and raiseing of children by makeing a long term committment attractive and more profitable. What's your answer?

If they cared about procreating so much, why not make it so the benefits only kick after you have kids? Oh wait, there goes that argument.

My answer is that giving gay couples these benefits will take away absolutely nothing from married heterosexual couples, nor will giving gays these benefits stop heterosexual couples from getting married.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

My answer is to encourage the procreating and raiseing of children by makeing a long term committment attractive and more profitable. What's your answer?

You don't actually believe, in reality, that people get married to reap these benefits, do you? Like I understand the theory and all, but real human beings don't get married so they can have some tiny tax break or get a better deal on insurance.

I'd wager that an awful lot of people don't even know what these benefits are before they get married but lo and behold they still get married.

I'm sure there are plenty of married people reading this thread. Anyone out there get married so they could save a few bucks? Anyone want to admit that they wouldn't have got married if this attractive incentive package wasn't there?

Some of the same people probably have children as well. I don't, but maybe one day. Can someone tell me how profitable it is?

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Who ever said otherwise?

People don't get married because of these inconsequential little benefits you keep harping on. Giving the same benefits to same-sex couples isn't going to change anything. It hasn't changed anything.

Who the hell wouldn't get married just because everyone else gets the same benefits?

"Gee honey, I'd love to get married and have kids, but since the gay couple gets the same deal, I don't think I'll bother".

The first part of your statement is quite true. People don't get married as soon as they used to and more folks are opting out of marriage all together. Money problems are in the top three reasons cited for divorce. Yes I agree that people won't get married merely because of the benefits offered them for being part of that institution. The benefits have actually eroded over the years. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't provide them and even increase them. By extending them to another group that doesn't offer the same benefits to society you open the flood gates for others. Winston Blackmoore has public ally argued more than once since same sex couples have been allowed the benefits of marriage that polygamist family units should be given these benefits. He is right. Why should we exclude one group or another if the only reason we extend these benefits is: because we do. Also, how likely is society going to expand those benefits if every Tom ,Dick, and possibly Harry is eligible?

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

You don't actually believe, in reality, that people get married to reap these benefits, do you?

Maybe your not old enough or maybe you don't remember how many folks used to marry at Christmas time in order to gain the tax benefit of that spouse for the whole previous year. It was enough to pay for a modest honeymoon in Reno or just pay off the expenses of the wedding. Did many marry for just that reason? Probably not but, it was an incentive. Maybe in some cases the straw that broke the camels back. The tax code has been altered and you can't do that anymore. If money problems are an issue in keeping marriages stable and I believe they are, tax benefits and other monetary benefits must help.

[Cheese]

LOL...wow the Right Wing agenda is in full force today.... Faith based Evidence?

Here is Talk Origins index if either Kobasew or CalgaryBornAgain want to educate themselves beyond the bible....

Talk Origins

Somehow I highly doubt that education will happen.

Richard Dawkins

..faith to me means knowing something just because you know it's true, rather than because you have seen any evidence that it's true.

..if you listen to two people who are arguing about something, and they each of them have passionate faith that they're right, but they believe different things---they belong to different religions, different faiths, there is nothing they can do to settle their disagreement short of shooting each other, which is what they very often actually do.

A creator who created the universe or set up the laws of physics so that life would evolve or who actually supervised the evolution of life, or anything like that, would have to be some sort of super-intelligence, some sort of mega-mind. That mega-mind would have had to be present right at the start of the universe. The whole message of evolution is that complexity and intelligence and all the things that would go with being a creative force come late, they come as a consequence of hundreds of millions of years of natural selection. There was no intelligence early on in the universe. Intelligence arose, it's arisen here, maybe it's arisen on lots of other places in the universe. Maybe somewhere in some other galaxy there is a super-intelligence so colossal that from our point of view it would be a god. But it cannot have been the sort of God that we need to explain the origin of the universe, because it cannot have been there that early.

How do you prepare for death in a world where there isn't a god? Dawkins: You prepare for it by facing up to the truth, which is that life is what we have and so we had better live our life to the full while we have it, because there is nothing after it. We are very lucky accidents or at least each one of us is---if we hadn't been here, someone else would have been. I take all this to reinforce my view that I am fantastically lucky to be here and so are you, and we ought to use our brief time in the sunlight to maximum effect by trying to understand things and get as full a vision of the world and life as our brains allow us to, which is pretty full.

Religion "preaches the truth of propositions for which it has no evidence," and, in fact, "the truth of propositions for which no evidence is even conceivable"

"All pretensions to theological knowledge," the author demands, "should now be seen from the perspective of a man who was just beginning his day on the one hundredth floor of the World Trade Center on the morning of September 11, 2001." As for the devout perpetrators, they "were certainly no 'cowards,' as they were repeatedly described in the Western media, nor were they lunatics in any ordinary sense. They were men of faith--perfect faith, as it turns out--and this, it must finally be acknowledged, is a terrible thing to be"
Sam Harris

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

People go to hell because they refuse to turn from their sin to God. Both the sin of Homosexuality and the sin of fornication were paid for by Jesus Christ 2000 years ago.

You may want to look at this article regarding homosexuality.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htm