huh? I think you need to explain the gay marriage part a bit further...

Well, people use the "it's against the word of God/it should only be between a man and a woman" arguments. Many people have misused religion as an excuse to suppress certain rights, and this is one of them. Times change, as does what is socially acceptable

my viewpoint on gay marriage has always been tough to figure out for me...

while I disagree with homosexuality on principle (I won't/don't want to be a part of it in any way shape or form and think it is disugsting and wrong for people to do it)... I also believe that people have the right to live their lives as they please as long as those choices don't harm me directly or indirectly (in most cases)....

And honestly, I'm very much in favor of the freedom to choose camp more than I am in the telling people what they can and can't do camp.

but yes, I agree that the use of God as part of the argument is stupid. You can't expect anyone that does not hold your religious beliefs to care what you think with respect to religion. I am in favor of restrictions on adoption and things like that because I feel there is a scientific reason to favor a mother and father lead family rather than 2 same sex partners. But that isn't much of an issue until more places allow same-sex marriage.

Yeah, I completely agree. It doesn't negatively impact me for gays to have the right to marry, so why isn't it allowed? I also agree with the scientific reasons for limited adoption (but not too low a restriction). It is important to have a mother and a father but I don't believe that the impact is so severe that a homosexual couple should be allowed to adopt at the very least 2 children (because being an only child probably stinks)

Honestly, I don't see any reason to restrict adoption. I know people that have been raised from infancy by homosexual couples and they are no different than anyone else. I mean, if we restrict than then it will open the floodgates and people will try to take rights away from single parent families and stuff like that... and then what about lesbian couples that actually conceive (artificially of course)?

But yeah, we are getting off topic again. Honestly geeogree I totally agree with you, it does absolutely nothing to argue based on religion with someone who holds different beliefs.

that's fair... I see where you're coming from in that aspect. Although a single parent is a single parent because they ended up like that not because they chose it. And quite often the other parent is still involved in some way. But I do see where you're coming from.

And about the lesbian couples - I don't really know. It's such a complicated world. I still feel like a male and female parent is the best option but I also find it hard to argue that 1 parents is better than 2 even if the 2 are same-sex. Especially if the 2 parent situation allows one of them to stay home full-time to help raise kids.

And yay, Elara and I agree. Although I think it's more because I came around to a more reasonable position.... but whatever, it's always nice to find a common ground.

I also think there should be a limit on adoption in general, but that's not the point. (and to clarify on my limit statement in the last post, I'd limit it to like 4)

Artificial insemination is different, but not much. It's better in the sense that the child has his/her real mother but the same in that there is still no father.

hrm.... so seperation of church and state..... [tries to go back on topic]


[can't think of anything]....

oh, focus on religion during elections.... I'll go back to that.

I don't see why we make such a big deal out of it. Unless the candidate is actually pushing their religion as a way to garner votes (which would work well in some areas) then I don't see why it should be brought up at all. I don't care that nearly every candidate claims to be Christian.... I'd much rather see candidates that have values and stand up for the people and lead with dignity than see any leader claim to be Christian but not act like it.

Speaking from an Irish perspective...state and religion should always be seperated. However the government must also regulate in some form or manner church instituitions.The Ryan report was released in my country only several weeks ago outlining the horrific sexual abuse of young children in these instituitions. It is grotesque,beyond words and has been described as Irelands "Holocaust" in the media. I'm not going to say much more about it but it was the state who sent these orphaned children to the church owned instituitions.The government and catholicism were closely bonded until recently where the churches special status has been basically terminated.If you want more in-depth material you can look it up.... my description was pretty brief but the only conclusion is that state and church shoul be seperated and regulated .

Wow, that just sounds bad.

But yeah, on the election thing... remember when Kennedy ran and everyone was b****ing because he was Catholic? Stupid now that you think about it really.

I personally believe it refers to giving public funds to a religious organization. To say that a set of laws cannot favor any particular ideology over another is unreasonable, and really impossible. A set of laws that doesn't support any set of values would be too void of any substance or meaning to have any sort of effect. If the laws were to support all beliefs, there would be too many conflicts for it to function.

I think it includes ignoring Public Officials' religious choices, not teaching things such as evolution in schools (unless said school is a Private school, then they may do whatever they want), and not making a national religion or something.

Separation of church is neither in the constitution, nor was it intended. I stand that our nation was founded on christian principles, without establishing a national denomination which would create a theocracy.

Hoochman : which christian principles are you referring to that most other religions (or people in general) don't have?

While it may have been founded on these principles I don't really view them as exclusively Christian in nature....

iBOCK : Actually, gay marriage is not considered "beyond forgiveness." Nothing is. The Bible makes this very explicit.

I'm probably going to shock everyone when I say I'm not taking a side on this. I say we just let church and state separate and see what happens.

Although I have noticed a *cough* "strange" parallel between separation of church and state and the legalization or protests in favor of a lot of unjust things, such as killing babies, censoring Christianity, and assisted suicide. So I really just think we should sit back, see if America turns into a hellhole, and if it does we can say "I told you so," and if not we can move somewhere where we'll have more freedom.

First of all, this debate is over. This topic has been over for a year now. Don't necropost. It's really annoying and is considered spam.

@Lagslayer please don't do this again.