canpolitics

Ok, having this debate in another forum I came across this article which demonstrates the curches opinons of marriage throughout the ages. It seems the churce is not to strict about its definition of marriage after all. The term marriage has been redefined several times since the bible was written, why is it so difficult to accept this change? Do the arguments made by some of the most well respected christians of early christianity sound familiar? Crime against god, Allowing men to marry women only perpetuates the devilry of women? Any of that sound familiar to anyone else out there?

BuffaloHELP, you post about copyright registration only being valid within the country you apply for it in is not quite accurate. Most countries have copyright agreements which means that a copyright in the UK is just as valid in the USA as in the UK. While this is not a truely international law it is close, especially when it is websites whe are talking about. As for your comment about the the need to apply, you are correct on that one, you do not NEED to apply, but if you truely want to be able to do anything about it it does need to be registered.There is an urban legend that if you send yourself a copy of the material you want copyrighted through registered mail you will guarantee your copy is protected. This is NOT the case, it may be considered by the courts, but not likely, it would still be a case of your word against thiers, envelopes can be tampered with, alls I would have to do is send myself an empty envelope then when a new popular book came out just type it out verbatim and steam open the envelope and put the copy within it and claim that I mailed a copy of the manuscript to the author to have them review it to see if it was any good. icemarle, the only thing you can do is write the culprit and tell them to remove the copyrighted material and hope they listened, unless it is registered and the culprit lives within your coutry or somewhere that has a copyright agreement with your country there is not much you can do, and it won't likely be worth the legal fees involved.Saint_Michael, just a technical point here, you cannot patent a website, you can only copyright it. There is a difference, but like I said it was only a technical comment, not really that important a point, your post is still valid.

I know you have already been chastised for this post, but I thought that being as I have been one of the most critical posters opposed to religion on this thread that I should make my opinion known. What you have posted here is wrong, it is hatred disguised as acceptance. You preach a violation of a basic right, the right to religion. Every man has that right, as long as they are not hurting others they have the right to pray to whatever god they so chose, try and take that away and I will fight with even the most devote religious fanatic whom I would normally be at odds with. The bible may be fiction to the likes of you and me, but to many it is gospel truth, and they have the right to believe that so long as they do not impose thier will on me or you. Remember this when you post your views on religion, it is not the bible that is at fault, but those who take the bible too far and justify it for restricting the rights of others or killing others. I am sure that even jzyehoshua agrees with me on this point, and I don't think jzyehoshua and I would agree on much else. Your opinion is your own, and just as valid as anyone elses. However I must ask you, name a single homosexual that WANTS to "do it in front of you"? They do wish only to do it in the privacy of thier own home, however they want the right to be recognized by law as a couple. What right do you have to restrict them from this. In what way does two people loving each other and pledging thier love for each other in marriage cheapen the institute of marriage? I will not call you old fashioned, I will however call you blinded by beliefs that have been hammered into you. In what way does two men or two women wishing to marry interfere with other peoples lives, I assure you never has the wedlock of any other couple affected my own marriage in any way (and BTW there are Gay Marriages allowed where I am). I don't give a fig if you think homosexuality is natural normal or ok with your god, however I do give a fig if you wish to restrict the rights of another human just because of something they choose (or are depending on what you think), when such a belief (or natural feature) is hurting no other person. This is NEVER ok. None of those passages forbids Same Sex Marriage. The bible may (and I do mean may, because I do not believe that the argument for the bible disliking homosexuals any more than heterosexuals is far from clear cut) speak out against homosexuality, but it does not condone the marriage of homosexuals explicitly. Even if it did it is not the place of any man on this earth, as you so eloquently pointed out time and time again, to judge another unless he himself is without sin, as such it is not the right of any man on this earth to forbid the marriage of any two persons who can find someone with the authority to wed them that will do so.

Well then that just goes to show you that the bible is open to interpretation. You state that the Old testament laws are no long aplicable, yet you quote Leviticus as the best examples of condemning homosexuality. your other two quotes do not specifically condmen homosexuality. Notice from BuffaloHELP: Fixed quote tags.

It is a simple matter of urban planning. Lets say a town with very few employment options suddenly finds GM knocking at thier door wanting to build a plant, the city finds a suitable place, 99% of home owners in the area are fine with it and sell their homes, one hold out remains and refuses to sell, but his home is dead centre in the proposed development, are you then stating that this one persons will over rides the will of the rest of the town. I thought it was a democracy? The plant would bring in thousands of jobs, create quite the economic boom for the town, and one person could screw it up.You see the argument can swing both ways. As long as it is used with caution and control it is a good idea, too heavily handed and suddenly it IS a serious problem.

green fairy, that is only ok if the images you use are covered under the "fair use" clause or are allowed by the owner of the copyright. As for the direct links, well yes and no, if you are linking to a video on another site technically it is fine, if you are feeding it directly to your site it is still technically a copyright infringment.

Ah, but you are completely ignoring the second part of the graven images commandment "or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above", this means that any likeness of anything at all is strictly forbidden. Also even if you leave it as a carved idol, what is the cross, but a carved idol.

A single vague passage, wow that is good (sarcasm alert). Actually the bible does NOT state that it is punishable by death but rather that they deserve death, surely you can appreciate the difference. Even at that homosexuality was just ONE of the reasons the people spoken about in Romans chapter 1 deserve death, observer verse 29-32 " 29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." It is not so much the homosexuality that is spoken agianst, but fornication in general, murder, DEBATE (what's that god hates debate?), deceit and whisperers. This is your example as to where the bible speaks out against homosexuality? And by the way it seems that it only condemns CHRISTIAN homosexuals, not homosexuals of other religions. The bible also states that any seed (read seamen) spilt while not for the purpose of procreation is a sin, which means that masterbation is a sin as well. You want passages from the bible that are open to interpretation, here you go: Deuteronomy 25:5-9 This passage states that if you have a married brother, and you live with them and your brother dies you HAVE to marry you sister in-law. Matthew 18:19 This passage states that if two people agree on wanting something on earth God will grant them this. Matthew 26:52 This passage states that all who take up the sword will perish by it. Mark 16:17-18 This passage states that all believers are able to handle any snake and drink poison without ill effect. Galatians 1:8-9 Paul's gospel overrides that of an Angel of God? Deuteronomy 21:18-21 Stone your rebelious sons. Not a single one of these passages involves prophecy, they are (with the exception of the two matthew passages and the Mark passage) biblical law.

So is it your contention that all marriages are for the sole purpose of procreation then? If so what about an 80 year old heterosexual couple, shouldn't you also deny THEM the right to wed? As for homosexuality itself, I can't explain why a man would find another man attractive, personally I am all about the female body, I love women.

First off marriage is a religeous and civil ceremony, meaning both the church and the state are allowed to perform marriages. Secondly several churches have expressed support of gay marriages and would marry homosexuals. Thirdly, where exactly in the bible does it state that homosexuality is a sin. There are several things layed out in the bible as a sin that are in direct conflict to what one does every day, why is this any different. Let me give you an example, have you EVER taken a picture, drawn something, made a sculputure or anything of the sort? I am guessing you have, if so you are in direct violation of the 10 Commandments. The second commandment in the bible is: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments." Now catholics and many others take this to mean soley that you should not worship graven images, but that is not what is stated in the bible. Also even if you only take that then worshiping the cross, statues of the virgin mary, and anything of the sort is a sin. Yet I don't here anyone condeming these. The worsip of the cross is going against biblical teachings, mind you such teachings have not been taught by relegious authorities for quite some time, but it is a simple matter of reading the bible to verify this.

You have a right to your own opinion, but can I ask you a simple question, you claim you are fine with gay relationships just not with marriage, you claim that it is because you believe marriage is tied up with relegion, you also state that people getting married should care what others think. Let me ask you a series of questions to demonstrate the falacies of thes claims: 1) Let's take two people who love each other very much and have lived together for 7 years, they decide to get married. Do you object? (Intentionally left out heterosexuality or homosexuality, and even the sex of the couple) 2) Marriage is tied to relegion only in recent times, marriage predates christianity. Is a mormon (one who believes in poligamy) who marries 7 wifes married to each of those wives? 3) Lets say my family does not like my wife because she has red hair, should I then not marry her, after all my entire family doesn't like her.

I have a tattoo, and I love it. It is a celtic knott forming a dragon, with hollowed out points filled in with hashings, a fairly complex design that I basically came up with on my own. It took me more than ten years to decide on the design (I got it on my 30th Birthday), so I am quite sure I will like it in the future. In fact I am considering getting a second. However I would never urge anyone to get a tattoo because they are "cool" or anything stupid like that, get a tattoo if you want, or don't, but be careful, it is permanent.To the poster who said it can make you sick, exactly what are you refering too? Infection? Sure it can happen, but you can get an infection from a paper cut, are you going to stop handling paper. As long as you go to a reputable place and make sure that the equipment is properly steralized, and that the artist uses gloves, and you follow the strict guidelines for care the risk of getting ill from a tattoo is negligable.To the poster who is worried about infection read the above paragraph.

Well lets see Saddam gassed the Kurds in '88, Desert Storm was the '90's, since then there have been numerous inspectors that have found no evidence of WMD's. Yes Saddam HAD chemical weapons. Yes he proved he was capable of USING chemical weapons, however zero credible evidence suggests he still had them. Bush deliberatly misled the public and the US government so he could justify finishing his daddy's war. Yes I for one would have supported the war on Iraq had the UN sanctioned it, after all it would have ment that the UN examined the evidence and agreed that such a war was justified. You claim that France, Germany and Russia votted against the sanctioning of the war because of personal gains, well actually they would have been able to get alot more of Iraq if they had of invaded with the US. Ever heard of War Profiteers? There was never ANY doubt as to the final outcome of such a war, so the risks were minimal, and the gains were great. Yes Russia and I think Germany possibly had some shady arms deals going on, yes All four countries had quite a bit of oil trade going on, but guess what so did the US. So, Russia, France, Germany, and Canada all made a stand against US on what basis, I have debunked your personal gains theory. Ah, but if they pull out now it will just revert to chaos and another dictator like Saddam will arise. Once said freedom is delivered the government must be stabalized first. Ok, I know that "it's all about the oil" line is popular with the anti-Iraq War crowed, I am shocked to see someone on the other side saying it, but regardless, do you really believe it? Sure the oil was a factor, I would even say it was a big factor, but to say it was all about the oil, well that's just silly. There are lives at stake here, and as much as I dislike Bush, I don't think he is that cold and unfeeling. As for your statement that Armageddon is upon us, well the world has survived bigger wars than this, and bigger wars are yet to come. I have faith that humanity will survive. What makes you think that Bill Clinton was the worst president? That is an interesting factoid, irrelevent, but interesting. I could also point out that Al Qaida was trained by the CIA to overthrow the Russians back during the coldwar. You could hardly claim that was Clinton's fault. I did see one statement saing the troops were evil, but I don't think many people believe that, and I am pretty sure it was not attributed to the author you quoted.

I am 30 Years old, so I suppose that puts me up there with the "Old Guys"

Ok, so I am not an American, and my country never went to Iraq in the first place, but no the forces in Iraq should NOT pull out now. Don't get me wrong, I disagree with the war, I think it is an illegal war, I think Bush intentionally altered intel so that it looked like Sadam had WMD's, and I think there should be consequences for the USA's attack on Iraq. However Iraq is currently in turmoil, even if they US pulls out they will be in turmoil, in fact things would probably only get worse for a while at least. As far as I am concerned the USA has far surpassed the point of no return on the war on Iraq, they MUST finish it now and help Iraq recover or Iraq will suffer even more than it already is. That being said I think they should try and get things in order quickly and have a government in Iraq that is effective and run by Iraq people.

Actually if anyone has Google earth I can send you a KMZ file which will put placemarks at all the ones I have tracked down so far (17). They are too large to be Hot Air balloons (try finding an airplane flying, these orbs are much larger than most planes, They cannot be space debris, since the hi-res images referenced were NOT taken by sattelite but rather by plane in aerial photographing.The best guess I heard was that they are water droplets on the housing of the aerial cameras, but even that seems a little odd to me. If you examine them closely they are in pretty straight east west line with each other (ok well actually I think there are 4 east west lines, but you get the point). As far as I know none have been found in non residential hi-res images, only in cities. If anyone knows of any outside florida or california please send me the co-ordinates, I am looking to see if they are elsewhere.

Is it your contention that there are no happy people? If so I would strongly disagree with you, unles you are simply stating that no one is 100% happy 100% of the time. As for hate, well I don't think it is a necessary part of man's existance. I believe it is a waste of ones time. And your statement that people have to be killed in order for others to be reborn, not true at all, natural deaths would be fine to maintain a balance. I am really not quite too sure what you were going for.

LOL, ya I know all about this. I have a three year old daughter, my house is noisy beyond belief sometimes, and we go out of our way to avoid all those damned noisy toys, we try and make sure they have volumes and such at bare minimum. In the end though others get her the nasty noismakers. Although I recently figured out a way to quiet down even the worst offenders that don't have volumes. Use tape to cover the speaker hole. Somethimes you really have to dig to find the speaker hole, but its there somewhere, tape over it and it really muffles the sound. The kid still loves it because it still makes noise, but it is silent compared to normal.

The technology isn't exactly new, they have had it at the CN Tower in Toronto Ontario, Canada for quite some time. I am not sure what you are saying about the tech, are you saying that if the bomb was cleaned it wouldn't give off the particles? Well I think the theory is that unless it were sealed real well it would still give it off, but it would still detect most cases, suicide bombers and such. It is not 100% fool proof, but it is better than nothing.

Glasses, I have been wearing glasses for, umm, 15 years at least, and I have never even tried contacts. Then again I have some sever phobias reguarding my eyes and I have never even been able to use eye drops dispite pretty bad allergies that would benifit from the use of eye drops. I can't imagine putting contacts in, can't even watch someone else do it without wanting to throw up.

I have an LG at home and at work, they are cheaper than most and I have never had a problem.

The paypal scams have nothing to do with Paypal themselves but rather with people who get an email from someone claiming to be from paypal demanding that they "reactivate" their account, or claiming another email address was added to the account and that they need to click a link in the email if they didn't add the address. As long as you are smart enough to realize that these emails are scams, and that Paypal would never just email you such a warning, they would use thier internal systems then you are safe.

The difference between Trademark and Copyright is quite simple. Copyright is as described the protection of intelectual property, where as trademark is a registration of the Mark of your Trade. Thus Kleenex is trademarked because it refers to a specific brand. Same as Microsoft is the trade name of Microsoft Inc. and is trademarked. Basically a trademark is simply a name that no one else has the right to use. There are some interesting rules regarding bending those rules, I don't know all of them but ones such as you couldn't use Micro$oft as a name because it is too close to MicroSoft, however you could use Micro$oft if it was a parody. Also if a brand name of a particular item becomes too popular as such a household name such as kleenex they run the risk of losing thier tradmark rights because of this, kleenex has been to court several times and as such still maintains the trademark, but I think it is a fine line. Does that answer you question?

silverwoody, well direct copy word for word would still be an infringment of copyright laws, although it would be hard to prove. Kind of a grey area legally speaking, you can't directly copyright facts, but you can copyright the manner in which they are presented, thus things like encyclopedia's and dictionaries are copyrighted, otherwise you could just type out the dictionary put your name on it and sell it as is. In your example it would be pretty hard for a cheat site to make a case against you if you used thier site to make your own cheat site unless you directly cut and pasted it in the exact way they presented it. In otherwords it is not advisable.

Well what an interesting thread, especially considering how the smoking debate has pretty much been hashed out a thousand times. I am not a smoker, I have never been a smoker, I do not hate smokers. I live in Ontario (that's in Canada btw), and here they are talking about banning smoking in public places across the country, guess what I support that idea. I think if you want to smoke in your own home or on your own property so be it, if you want to smoke in my home though, you had better go outside, and if you want to smoke in a restaurant, same thing. One poster implied that any limitations on smoking was an infringement on the rights of smokers. I say that is nonsense, I would agree however that if you outright banned it everywhere including in a person's own home then yes it is an infringment of rights and there is no way I would support that. But I hasten to add that smoking is not a right, it is something people do that destroys thier own bodies, and as such the anti smoking push should continue to urge people NOT to smoke.In my province there is a law forcing all cigaratte producers to place warning labels on the packages that cover a good portion of the packaging, and the lables are not simple "Smoking is hazardous to your health" but graphic images showing what can happen due to smoking. I think that the labels are a great idea, and they do help prevent people from picking up the habbit, although it is questionable as to the effect it has on smokers. The poster who was so livid about smokers rights posed a question which compared smoking to eating at McDonalds, I say we should be telling people not to eat at McDonalds, again don't ban it, but force fast food chains to put warning labels on anything with over x% fat with graphic pictures showing what can happen to morbidly obese people. This would serve a dual purpose, stop people from eating too much fat content, and force fast food chains to produce food with lower fat content so that they don't have to place labels on thier food packaging.