Topic awaiting preservation: The Christian Paradox (Page 4 of 7)

Personally, I don't believe we should equate ouselves with the animals regarding sexual human ehavior. What separates us from the animals is our rationalistic behavior in how we relate to each other as humans. Though scientist use many animals in research to conduct the sciences, we must know that we are a more intelligent spieces in determining life issues. Same gender animals, rodents, insects, etc. exhibiting same sex tendencies are not answerable to anyone therefore can act contrary to nature in its development in their short life span. Man should not. Simply said, dogs will be dogs and cats will be cats. They will try to mate and suffer no consequences. They don't know any better but we do. Even in this mortal life if one who chooses to act against their own physical human nature they take on many hardships in human society. And human, in their fullest capabilites, if they choose to act they should do so according to their physical human nature. We are more esteemed in creation and are way above acting like animals and should not take on animal characteristics by choice. We as dignitifed humans must act according to a natural human dignified behavior. Though some humans act in animalistic ways in regard to murders, rapes, same sex acts. sexual perversions, etc., they do so becauses they have separated themselves from a dignified human characteristic. What comples one who acts against his own human nature??????
Male abosorbing female tendencies or women absorbing male tendencies?????? It does not stem from the physical body nature but the mind. Therefore the mind must be corrected not the body. Regardless on what side your are on in this issue, we all know the sexuality of the human person male or female in its chemical nature operates according to its natural functions. For example, women have menstrual cycles and experience a monthly emotional and physical state. Their breast get tender and they swell, etc. This process is part of the "be fruitful and multiply" Most women desire to have a child. Men do not and should not have that female emotional characateristic in the communion of family. Two men or women coming together in this society in a leglaized marriage affects all society and cripples it. I am affected so I have a right to vote against it or voice my opinion against it.

Acts are termed human when they are proper to man as a man; when they are elicited by man, but not proper to him as a rational man they are called unnatured acts of man.
Homomosexual unions simply do not conform to the definition of marriage. They will never be true marriages. In human history and experience, a man and a woman come together to form a permanent life-giving union and at the same time to become a family, the first cell of human society. Civil law cannot legitimately redefine this human reality. We as Christians are morally obligated to see that civil laws reflect the proper moral order. We have experienced in the history of our country the imposing of laws that were enacted by the legislature and confirmed by the Supreme Court which at the same time were clearly immoral and unjust to us as Christians. Slavery presents is an example of a law that was simply unjust. It contradicted the truth of right reason about human dignity and the natural moral order. The same self-evident truth is present in legalized abortion. While abortion may be legal in the United States, it is still immoral to take the life of an unborn child. Just because something is legal does not make it moral. The moral law has a higher claim on the Christian conscience than does civil law does. Respecting the dignity of homosexual persons does not conflict with upholding God's intent for marriage in which sexual relations have their proper and exclusive place for us. Christians must give witness to the whole moral truth and also oppose as immoral both homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons. There is no separation between one's faith and life either in public or private life. All Christians should, with a well-formed conscience, act on their beliefs. They should be a community of conscience within society. We, by our Christian moral ethic hould proclaim and vote against homosexual union. We should contribute to society's welfare and test its public life by the standards of right reason of our spiritual truths.

(Edited by jade on 08-26-2005 20:59)

We in this society are not all christians, and we have laws that are setup to protect us from you and your ilk, and I do feel that we need protection, who would try and impose your limited views on those who do not share your subset of what is moral and what is not.

As you attempt to influency law to effect your moral ideals all I can do is feel sad for you. It signifies that you and those who would support this are not secure enough of faith to let your religion stand on its own. Instead of letting your religion exist as a matter of faith and of personal servitude you will try to boster its failures to influency through common law.

You and your kind scare me, very, very unstable.

Dan @ Code Town

quote:

---

What comples one who acts against his own human nature??????

---

And as we have demonstrated repeatedly, such things are *not* against human nature. they *are* human nature.

quote:

---

herefore can act contrary to nature in its development in their short life span. Man should not. Simply said, dogs will be dogs and cats will be cats.

---

So....animals in anture, acting naturally.....is somehow *against* nature....
That's about as twisted as logic can be...

quote:

---

Two men or women coming together in this society in a leglaized marriage affects all society and cripples it.

---

And if you can come out with even one REASONABLE explanation of it affects society, and how it "cripples" society, and how *you* are personally affected (aside from your own personal offense) by the marriage of two men or two women, you might begin to get somewhere with your argument.

So far I have heard no such thing from you or anyone else.

Can you do this?

Ok, missed a few points -

quote:

---

Homomosexual unions simply do not conform to the definition of marriage. They will never be true marriages.

---

1) which definition? Whose definition? There are many meanings for the word, and I don't see what makes you qualified to impose your personal limitations on the meaning.

2) the definition of a word is based entirely on how the word is used.

quote:

---

In human history and experience, a man and a woman come together to form a permanent life-giving union and at the same time to become a family, the first cell of human society.

---

This is by no means universal.

quote:

---

Civil law cannot legitimately redefine this human reality.

---

Civil law reflects the "human reality".
Human reality includes homosexual relationships, regardless of you opnion of such relationships.

quote:

---

We as Christians are morally obligated to see that civil laws reflect the proper moral order.

---

And we as reasonable people are morally obligated to see that civil laws reflect what is reasonable and just, and are not goverened by your mythology.

quote:

---

We have experienced in the history of our country the imposing of laws that were enacted by the legislature and confirmed by the Supreme Court which at the same time were clearly immoral and unjust to us as Christians. Slavery presents is an example of a law that was simply unjust. It contradicted the truth of right reason about human dignity and the natural moral order.

---

And the men who enacted these laws, who enforced these laws, who fought bloody battles to continue these laws, and who owned slaves by the thousands were self proclaimed devout christians. They also enforced laws that would allow a person to be killed for saying such things as "there is no god".

quote:

---

The same self-evident truth is present in legalized abortion. While abortion may be legal in the United States, it is still immoral to take the life of an unborn child.

---

In your opinion. Obviously there are enough people who feel you are wrong that the law supports a woman's choice.

quote:

---

Just because something is legal does not make it moral. The moral law has a higher claim on the Christian conscience than does civil law does.

---

One more reason to be happy we're not all christians.

One more reason to be happy that our nation recognized the need for freedom of religion, and the right to not have YOUR opnion foisted on US as law.

quote:

---

Respecting the dignity of homosexual persons does not conflict with upholding God's intent for marriage in which sexual relations have their proper and exclusive place for us. Christians must give witness to the whole moral truth and also oppose as immoral both homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons. There is no separation between one's faith and life either in public or private life. All Christians should, with a well-formed conscience, act on their beliefs. They should be a community of conscience within society. We, by our Christian moral ethic hould proclaim and vote against homosexual union. We should contribute to society's welfare and test its public life by the standards of right reason of our spiritual truths.

---

You should keep your personal views out of legislation altogether.
I am quite sure that god can take care of those he feels are sinning. I'd suggest you leave it to the higher power whose righteousness and wisdom you profess so adamantly.

As I said above - if you can come up with even *one* REASONABLE explanation of how two men being married affects your life in any *real* way, you might have a start.

I'll await your explanation eaglerly...

And she has the nerve to define her self as 'rational'.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

Jade: We, by our Christian moral ethic hould proclaim and vote against homosexual union.

---

Bollocks!

*sigh* You just don't get it do you Jade? Not that I am about to try to fruitlessly explain it...again.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

(Edited by Ramasax on 08-26-2005 22:09)

I'm biting my tongue, too, ramasax. But it ain't easy.

All I'm going to say is:

Jade, Moral law is personal. Civil law is for everybody--including people who don't share your opinions about morals. As a Christian, if someone comes to you, of their OWN FREE WILL and asks for your advice about homosexuality, or abortion, or whatever, because they have a personal problem with it themselves, then you are free to say whatever you want. If they WANT it. But it is wrong to impose it on the unwilling by law, or try to make everybody think the same way. It is oppression, no different from slavery in the long run. Only instead of slavery of the whole person, it's slavery of free will.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

Interesting thoughts you all have, even if some of you "pile on", rather than offer your own thoughts.

I am not xian. I consider myself non-religious. I look for the best that religions can offer, when I need help in getting through the tough times in life., but that's about it. I am not debating this issue with any religious goal, as others are. Sometimes what 2 different people think, does not mean that they are both follow any sort of religion. I think many of you are divided on many issues, and that the only way you can decently argue against someone else, is to put them into categories, based simply on what they agree with, without ever asking that person. e.g. In this last election, I was against Bush, but that did not mean that I was pro-Kerry. Same here. If I disagree that "acts" within the animal kingdom, mirror man's acts, does not make them "natural", DOES NOT mean I am xian.

That being said, many animal acts, are also acts man does, and has done in the past, but that does not make them, "natural" to man. And stating the obvious history of man's past acts, does not validate them as "natural", simply because they mirror acts within the animal world. And that includes any primitive tribes existing today. They were decisions that were wrong. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now. And not because any GOD told me so.

Man decides to annihilate/wipe off the face of the earth, an entire group of humans, an act not seen in the animal kingdom, so that's unnatural, but since animal and man both commit "infantcide", then that IS natural?

Man and animal "reasoning" are not one in the same.

quote:

---

Man decides to annihilate/wipe off the face of the earth, an entire group of humans, an act not seen in the animal kingdom, so that's unnatural

---

Again this is incorrect.

All animals, humans included, instinctually harm other species that are seen as a threat. When the threat is considerable, so is the harm issued.

We see this in ant colonies to a very fascinating extent, actually. We see it in apes, in wild cats, etc

Zynx - perhaps we can make this easier on everyone, and give us your definition of "natural" behavior.

quote:

---

Man decides to annihilate/wipe off the face of the earth, an entire group of humans, an act not seen in the animal kingdom, so that's unnatural

---

quote:

---

Again this is incorrect. All animals, humans included, instinctually harm other species that are
seen as a threat. When the threat is considerable, so is the harm issued.

---

Wrong! You are talking about the "instinct" for an animal to defend itself against intruders. Animals, and ants, do not "decide" one day to "seek out", with a "want" to kill another species.

quote:

---

perhaps we can make this easier on everyone, and give us your definition of "natural" behavior.

---

I thought things were not black & white, DL? It's just not logical to compare man's acts with an animal's acts, or vice-versa. And overall, and common sense applies here, we are not comparable creatures.

One idea; MORALS! Man has them, and animals do not.

quote:

---

I thought things were not black & white, DL? It's just not logical to compare man's acts with an animal's acts, or vice-versa. And overall, and common sense applies here, we are not comparable creatures.

---

Things are not black and white, but so far all you have done is tell us that what we are talking about is *not* natural.

SO how about explaining what criteria you use to determine if something is natural?

quote:

---

Wrong! You are talking about the "instinct" for an animal to defend itself against intruders. Animals, and ants, do not "decide" one day to "seek out", with a "want" to kill another species.

---

No. You are wrong. I am assuming we are still referring to the issue of humans killing off other humanoid species (if that's not the case, forgive me...).

This is exactly the kind of instinctual behavior observed in animals - kiliing/chasing off a species who is infringing on your resources.

We most certainly do see animals seeking out such 'intruders', and we see them attack, kill, chase off - essentially wage war. We see this in many species, and it is not a simple 'defend myself against an overt attacker' kind of action. We see organization, purpose, we see them seeking each other out!

Off the top of my head I can speak for chimpanzees and ants exhibiting this behavior, in the same manner in which the homosapiens would have attecked/killed/chased off the neanderthal and others.

quote:

---

One idea; MORALS! Man has them, and animals do not.

---

That's a subject that, I think, would require its own thread to get into....



(Edited by DL-44 on 08-27-2005 03:29)

Cordial disagreements. Danka DL.

quote:

---

, but so far all you have done is tell us that what we are talking about is *not* natural.

---

No, I am talking about the idea that comparing an "Animal's" acts, is not comparable to "Man's" acts. It is mentally not congruent!

quote:

---

So how about explaining what criteria you use to determine if something is natural?

---

Again you are not giving me a criteria to deal with. We teach others how to save man. We combat man's afflictions(diseases). We think differently than animals.

quote:

---

No. You are wrong. I am assuming we are still referring to the issue of humans killing off other humanoid species (if that's not the case, forgive me...)

---

No need to be forgiven. It was just a misunderstanding, during a debate. I was defending the issue that humans killing off other humans, does NOT harbor the same reasons, as "animals" kiling other animals, WHEN, an animal is defending themselves.

quote:

---

, we see them seeking each other out!

---

NO! When they are "seeking" they are doing so out of "instinct", for food, sunlight, water, or for many other "instinctual" ideas. They do not do so, simply because they disagree with that species.

quote:

---

Off the top of my head I can speak for chimpanzees and ants exhibiting this behavior, in the same manner in which the homosapiens would have attecked/killed/chased off the neanderthal and others.

---

Funny you should say such things. While man has evolved we have(Due to intelligence), expounded upon our ideals of good and bad, right and wrong. Animals have not, dare I say, can not deal with the idea of RIGHT & WRONG. "Infantcide", is an idea that is abhored by today's humanity standards. Within the animal kingdom, this idea can not involve WITH morals, so it still exists today, just as it has for many, many, years.

quote:

---

That's a subject that, I think, would require its own thread to get into....

---

I agree, but UNDERSTANDING ideas is an INTELLECTUAL enrichment we ALL must embrace! No?

quote:

---

NO! When they are "seeking" they are doing so out of "instinct", for food, sunlight, water, or for many other "instinctual" ideas. They do not do so, simply because they disagree with that species.

---

I'm sorry, but this is *absolutely* wrong. You'll have to do some looking into it, I don't have anything handy to post with any more specificity.

quote:

---

"Infantcide", is an idea that is abhored by today's humanity standards.

---

According to who?
The "standards" you speak of are entirely dependent on time/place/context/indivdual perception.

As I spoke about above, this view is by no means unviersal, and the acceptance of such things has covered a great many times and places, including some that persist today.

It is impossible to define such a thing as "today's humanity standards"

It is also impossible, therefore, to speak of such things in terms of what is "natuiral", as natural has nothing to do with current societal constructs that humans use to emulate their own concept of a higher consciousness. It personifies, in a rather ironic manner, the idea that "I think, therefore I am".



(Edited by DL-44 on 08-27-2005 05:27)

quote:

---

Therefore the mind must be corrected not the body.

---

Repeat after me:

the mind must be corrected
the mind must be corrected
the mind must be corrected

Ahhh...where's a good inquisition when you need one eh Jade.

For the sake of discussion Zynx, let's say the nature's of man and animal cannot be comperd to each other. With this thought in place, could you explain the what is and isn't classified as natural in terms of man's behavior?

quote:

---

NO! When they are "seeking" they are doing so out of "instinct", for food, sunlight, water, or for many other "instinctual" ideas. They do not do so, simply because they disagree with that species.

---

In every case I can think of, when a group of people turn to genocide or war with another group of people, they don't do it simply because they have different idealogies, they do it because they see a threat against their way of life in the idealogies of others. In the case of serial killers, that kill out of fun, they are *naturally* shunned and scorned by others in mankind.

___________________________________
Quidquid Latine Dictum Sit, Altum Viditur ~
Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound

Zynx, either put up, or shut up. I'm frankly getting very tired of your empty rhetoric - DL asked you how you define "natural behavior"

quote:

---

Zynx - perhaps we can make this easier on everyone, and give us your definition of "natural" behavior.

---

- and I ask you, if it is found in Nature, then what is it other than natural?

Now, either answer the questions, or shut up.

Your silly little "tirades" are both illogical, unreasoned, and worst of all, makes you look like the fool that you apparently are, especially when you use them to avoid answering questions.

I won't comment on Jade's...hard to say what she posted is called. It is just so wrong, on so many levels - one can directly compare it to radical Muslem rhetoric.

Zynx reminds me a great deal of Gid's mindless roundabout. How do peple get that way?

Surely, t'aint natural?

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

It is a defense mechanism.

The problem with this one, is that they actually know they are using it. It is not that they are simply stiupid, but they decide to act stupid to escape having to deal with an issue in a correct and logical way when they are not currently equipped to deal with it.

It is a sign of a very lazy person who have built into they thinking that they have to be correct, no matter the case.

Dan @ Code Town

"if you can come out with even one REASONABLE explanation of it affects society"

I agree with that statment - considering all the fuzz, christians must consider this issue to be tremendously important, and it would be nice to understand why that is?
Especially considering the fact that there are other immoral things going on, which, frankly, are much more disturbing and evil, which are wholeheartedly supported by christians.

(^-^)b

WM, you got 2 things going there, an actual reason, and a misguided insult.
Looking into your explaination of the "defense mechanism" I must agree with you that there is merit to it. I know you meant it as a joke/chide, but it can be true. If Christians wish to only view things from one side, one point of view, one field of reference, they are misguiding themselves. To properly understand a subject Christians must understand differing views, even if they conflict with our beliefs.

"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD

Hehe...Gid is explaining to WM what WM is saying?

Oh, this is good...*gets out popcorn*

Zynx--Listen, I don't see what the problem is with comparing what is natural to humans to what is natural for animals. Yes, we have morals, and animals don't. But what are morals other than the desire to fight what feels natural and what one feels is PERSONALLY unacceptable behavior--for whatever reason, be it religious or otherwise? I am not following your reasoning at all. It makes no sense.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

Um, Gid? WM was not joking, chiding nor insulting. Merely 'telling it like it is'.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

In the Bible, Jesus does say that you have to fight your nature, but was he talking about man or animals nature? hmmm...

___________________________________
Quidquid Latine Dictum Sit, Altum Viditur ~
Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound

quote:

---

So how about explaining what criteria you use to determine if something is natural?

---

1) Actions by man-----------------------------(actions not capable by animals)------------------------Natural to man.
2) Actions by animals-------------------------(actions not capable by man)----------------------------Natural to animals.

quote:

---

NO! When they are "seeking" they are doing so out of "instinct", for food, sunlight, water, or for many other "instinctual" ideas. They do not do so, simply because they disagree with that species.I'm sorry, but this is *absolutely* wrong. You'll have to do some looking into it, I don't have anything handy to post with any more specificity.

---

Is this a final observation? That an animal's actions, do not mentally differ in anyway, than man's actions?

quote:

---

"Infantcide", is an idea that is abhored by today's humanity standards.

---

quote:

---

"According to who?

---

Ok, standards was the wrong word. Look at this way. Infantcide is nor more abhorant to animals now, than it was then. The same can not be said of man. Such ideas as are viewed as primitive actions. Who decided that? Man did.

quote:

---

1) Actions by man-----------------------------(actions not capable by animals)------------------------Natural to man.

---

Soooo....pissing is not natural to Man?

Driving is Natural to Man? Really? I thought it had to be learned.

I disagree strongly with that definition.

quote:

---

Soooo....pissing is not natural to Man? Driving is Natural to Man? Really? I thought it had to be learned.

---

" Don't be so obtuse. "

(Edited by Zynx on 08-29-2005 19:59)

So....try as I might, I simpyl don't see anything that makes any kind of point that I can respond to in that post zynx...

For this to go anywhere, you will really need to clarify what it is you are trying to say, as it seems right now that you really don't have a clear point or direction.

How about some examples of your criteria for natural behavior, and perhaps a statement on exactly what the point behind it is?

quote:

---

So....try as I might, I simply don't see anything that makes any kind of point that I can respond to in that post zynx...For this to go anywhere, you will really need to clarify what it is you are trying to say, as it seems right now that you really don't have a clear point or direction.How about some examples of your criteria for natural behavior, and perhaps a statement on exactly what the point behind it is?

---

I said this in the past. Determining what is natural to man, by observing animals, is scientifically plain silliness.

Unless you think, like I asked, that there is absolutely, nothing mentally different with man's decision making process, and an animals. Do you believe such things? I ask this, because as much as I have posted against the contrary of that thinking, I find it harder to imagine the equally opposite idea, others seem to support. That is, that man reacts with the same reasons as animals do.

As for some examples, I'd start with, Humans are different from animals in that;
We can speak
We can write
We have a sense of personal history
We have s sense of the history of other cultures
We have theories about what makes the world tick (e.g., believe in God, Evolution, or alien visitors)
We devise schemes of how the world ?should be' (e.g., have legal systems and cultural ideals ? ?everyone is equal', ?only a man and a woman can be married,'etc.)

quote:

---

That is, that man reacts with the same reasons as animals do.

---

Mans INITIAL reaction to situations usually are animalistic. Mamas still throw many babies in the dump out of fear for one thing or another, just as other mamas are fiercely protective. But man has the ability to think and modify his behavior to the good or to the bad if he so chooses where animals don't.

As for your list, what makes you think that animals wouldn't do those things if they could think? And what has the ability to think have to do with issues like homosexuality, since that is what brought on this whole thing about natural behavior?

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

quote:

---

Mans INITIAL reaction to situations usually are animalistic. Mamas still throw many babies in the dump out of fear for one thing or another, just as other mamas are fiercely protective.

---

While some situations are, not all of man's reactions START with primitive animalistic thoughts.

quote:

---

But man has the ability to think and modify his behavior to the good or to the bad if he so chooses where animals don't.

---

Agreed wholeheartedly!

quote:

---

As for your list, what makes you think that animals wouldn't do those things if they could think?

---

I don't. Nor is anyone capable of knowing that. I'd like to think that animals, one day, could evolve into creatures that could speak, and write.

quote:

---

And what has the ability to think have to do with issues like homosexuality, since that is what brought on this whole thing about natural behavior?

---

Ok, I'd like to bring back the Bonobo monkeys, which were mentioned here earlier. People showcase these monkeys as being "homosexual". I did more research and found that they exhibit this behavior, for more reasons, than just sexual gratification. Fear, jealousy, and anger, will also prompt a bonobo monkey, to run, and then sexually gratify him or herself, and sometimes with others, and in total visibility of other bonobo's.

Man does not display his homosexual behavior in the same manner as these animals do. And if man did, it would be disgusting to many, which explains that, " man has the ability to think and modify his behavior to the good or to the bad if he so chooses where animals don't.

Natural for them, not natural for us.

I give up.

it is honestly not worth my effort at this point zynx - the more you talk, the more obscure or unrelated to the questions your point becomes.

the more I clarify my point, the more you redirect to something else...


ciao =)

And don't forget to tell the "Jaguars", and the "Ants", that were still on for dinner tomorrow! But this time, tell them both to leave behind their "humans". Last time, they both crapped on the carpet. "Humans" can be so annoying. Bye.

Paradox indeed; http://www.harpers.org/ExcerptTheChristianParadox.html and we have seen examples of this, right here on our very own pages.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

Ok. then there are billions of stupid people out there. Right?

---

quote:

---

First of all - YES!

---

So this is your BELIEF?

quote:

---

The point being: Just because a lot of people believe something, doesn't make it true. Hitler had the support of almost of all of Germany, Austria, Italy, and more. Does that make him right?

---

" According to who? The "standards" you speak of are entirely dependent on time/place/context/indivdual perception. As I spoke about above, this view is by no means universal, and the acceptance of such things has covered a great many times and places, including some that persist today. "

Your a funny hypocrite DL.

quote:

---

Homomosexual unions simply do not conform to the definition of marriage. They will never be true marriages.

---

Then have your term "marriage", but let's not deny the same state/governmental benefits, simply because of a simply "language" error.

quote:

---

In human history and experience, a man and a woman come together to;
1) form a permanent life-giving union
2) and at the same time to become a family.
Civil law cannot legitimately redefine this human reality.

---

Yet it does. Homosexual parents, and their children, are a union. Just not a xian union
Homosexual parents, and their children are a "family", including much LOVE.

quote:

---

The first cell of human society

---

Ok, again you can have the 'first" cell, just so you let those who are gay and wish to build a family, give them the "second" cell. R we Ok with that?

quote:

---

We as Christians are morally obligated to see that civil laws reflect the proper moral order.

---

quote:

---

Slavery presents is an example of a law that was simply unjust.

---

Yet it was a xian moral.

quote:

---

It contradicted the truth of right reason about human dignity and the natural moral order.

---

Wrong! You can't have it both ways. "Proper moral order", is a "Xian moral order". So you can't take credit for both creating it, and enouncing it.

quote:

---

While abortion may be legal in the United States, it is still immoral to take the life of an unborn child.

---

Don't be so short-sighted. If you look at the world on this issue, the United states actually follows much of the rest of the world, hence it is more acceptable to this WORLD, than simply you/xians.

quote:

---

We, by our Christian moral ethics should proclaim and vote against homosexual union. We should
contribute to society's welfare and test its public life by the standards of right reason of our spiritual truths.

---

Spiritual truth? So the xian standard of priests sexually defiling little boys, is more about testing public life by the standards of reason? OH PLEASE GOD, have this person explain this one! I wait with baited breath!
Pun intended!

quote:

---

Your a funny hypocrite DL.

---

And you're a sad idiot.

quote:

---

Just because something is legal does not make it moral.

---

I guess that would depend on "your morals". The death penalty is quite "moral" to me. So is "abortion". Ask me why or how, and I'll guarantee that my "morals" simply disagree with yours, but that does not make my morals, "wrong". Let alone "legal".

quote:

---

One more reason to be happy that our nation recognized the need for freedom of religion,

---

Yet I do like the truth that this country started with xian ideals to START with. Instead of Islam, or Judaoism, but I can agree that we have moved on from our xian roots. It's a nice solid base to work with, but let's not stay in those dark ages, and create our laws built on such out-dated ideals.

quote:

---

And you're a sad idiot.

---

DL, you're disgruntled. Your RHETORICAL debating ways, is quite child-like. But in a FUNNY way.

quote:

---

Two men or women coming together in this society in a legalized marriage affects all society and cripples it. I am affected so I have a right to vote against it or voice my opinion against it.

---

Cripples it? So you are including the damage heterosexual marriages, has done to this country? Do you consider that everything heterosexual couple, has NOT, nor has NEVER had, an adverse effect on society? So to you it's ALL GOOD!?!?!?!?!