Discussion: Gay Rights II [Archive] - Page 2

View Full Version : Discussion: Gay Rights II

Pages : 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

avpmaster132004

02-19-2008, 11:45 PM

I dont support marriage in General. But id rather see a gay couple getting married than a straight one. More intresting.

And ill put my penis in wherever or whoever I want!

bullets

02-19-2008, 11:47 PM

"Gay marriage is between a man and a woman"

chaseter

02-20-2008, 12:17 AM

Polygamy is actually a more beneficial union than monogamy for mankind as a species. It facilitates greater crossbreeding and, therefore, greater diversity in the gene pool.
Actually marriage in general, even polygamy, is less beneficial to genetic variation than just sexin it up with random women. In polygamy and monogamy, you are still bound to a single or set of certain women only:o

chaseter

02-20-2008, 12:19 AM

I dont support marriage in General. But id rather see a gay couple getting married than a straight one. More intresting.

And ill put my penis in wherever or whoever I want!
You would rather see a gay couple getting married than a straight couple:huh: Ohhhhhkaaaaay:whatever:

Putting your penis wherever is not a good idea.

Monster

02-20-2008, 03:17 AM

My dad's gay and he's "married" to his partner.

It's called Civil Partnerships over here.

I reckon you're all being really unfair when you say no, just because YOU don't want to get married to the same sex; doesn't mean you can stop anyone else.

Mmmkay?

spike spiegel

02-20-2008, 06:23 AM

DarknessOfDeath

02-20-2008, 07:22 AM

To be fair... there are certain aspects I agree and disagree with but lets just put it this way - its 50/50 and I have nothing against gays/lesbians.

Memphis Slim

02-20-2008, 08:01 AM

Isn't it ironic that none us (straight or homosexual) would exist, if not for a "heterosexual" union between two people?? :yay:

Fascinating...

Hotwire

02-20-2008, 08:24 AM

Marriage in this country is no longer sacred, so the whole "sanctity of marriage" argument is BS. If someone wants to save the sanctity of marriage, do something about the 50% divorce rate in this country first. This country was founded with the Decleration of Indipendence, a document where Thomas Jefferson lists certain inalienable rights, one ofv which is the pursuit of happiness. No, if a gay couple wants to pursue happiness together, and they aren't harming others, what's the problem? Just because you disagree with their lifestyle, does not give you the right to legislate your "moral" views on them.

raybia

02-20-2008, 08:55 AM

This is ridiculous. ONE man and ONE woman. What's next? Making divorce illegal? How the hell can you justify not allowing two CONSENTING adults the rights of any other CONSENTING adults?

Because this is American: Land of the free, home of the brave.

Mister Sinister

02-20-2008, 09:00 AM

Isn't it ironic that none us (straight or homosexual) would exist, if not for a "heterosexual" union between two people?? :yay:

Fascinating...

...and?

Are you trying to say that gays and allies are anti-heterosexual?

raybia

02-20-2008, 09:09 AM

Ring Deacon

02-20-2008, 10:09 AM

Cunning Stunts

02-20-2008, 12:11 PM

To those who say no: in all actuality, how does gay marriage affect you? How does it infringe on your life or lifestyle?

spike spiegel

02-20-2008, 12:16 PM

To those who say no: in all actuality, how does gay marriage affect you? How does it infringe on your life or lifestyle?

For me, it doesn't.

But like the poster above, my view comes from my religious beliefs, and so it's not something that I can say is morally right.

amazingfantasy15

02-20-2008, 12:23 PM

I have to say no. While I have nothing against someone who choses that lifestyle, I do not agree with it. Call it my religous beliefs if you want to, I just feel it is morally wrong.

And lets not get into a debate about the government having no right to say what is morally wrong. The government has every right to make laws based on moral beliefs. Murder, rape and robbery are all morally wrong and we have laws against them. I feel if you are going to allow gay marriage then why not aniamal marriage? How about making it ok to murder people? The point is you can take about the separation between church and state all you want, but the truth is all laws are based on what is morally right or wrong.

I like your first paragraph, hilarious! You have nothing against gay people except the fact the you believe their love life is morally wrong, sure sounds like you have something against gay people.

As for your laws example, an animal isn't able to communicate that he wants to marry a human, two gay people can communicate they want to be together. Also, you're trying to equate gay marriage to murder, really? That's pretty f'ed up man.

Cunning Stunts

02-20-2008, 12:29 PM

For me, it doesn't.

But like the poster above, my view comes from my religious beliefs, and so it's not something that I can say is morally right.

Why religion, though? I have Christian friends that have argued this, but when you get down to it:

The Bible really is nothing more than a storybook. It's not a way of life- man has interpreted it numerous times in numerous ways over the past hundreds of years.

Also, morals are only values that you find correct by and for yourself- finding something morally incorrect generally means you simply won't do it, and not that others cannot or should not. Their moral values may be completely different from yours, so why push for laws to ban practices that you find wrong? Isn't that a tad bit selfish?

Sandman138

02-20-2008, 12:30 PM

I have to say no. While I have nothing against someone who choses that lifestyle, I do not agree with it. Call it my religous beliefs if you want to, I just feel it is morally wrong.

Good for you. Want a gold star?

And lets not get into a debate about the government having no right to say what is morally wrong. The government has every right to make laws based on moral beliefs. Murder, rape and robbery are all morally wrong and we have laws against them.

Bull****. Those laws are property rights issues. My body is my property, if you murder me, rape me, or rob me you infringe on my property and either myself or my kin are entitled to compensation for said infringment.

I feel if you are going to allow gay marriage then why not aniamal marriage?

And I feel that someone who cannot distinguish between sex, gender, and species has no business reproducing let alone rearing a child. Unlike you, though, I am not actively trying to ban your IQ quotient from a marriage or the chance to create a family. I just trust that natural selection will weed you out and that's enough to get me to sleep at night.

How about making it ok to murder people?

We already went over how this is not a question of morals.

The point is you can take about the separation between church and state all you want, but the truth is all laws are based on what is morally right or wrong.

You wouldn't be able to spot the truth even if it sodomized your sister with a plunger while wearing a clown suit.

Cunning Stunts

02-20-2008, 12:38 PM

The point is you can take about the separation between church and state all you want, but the truth is all laws are based on what is morally right or wrong.

Not true. For starters, read my previous post, and if you're coming back for seconds, abortion is under heat as to whether or not it's morally right or wrong, yet it's allowed. Not making my own judging statement here, but that's a prime example in my opinion.

Also, in Africa, female circumcision is allowed by their "law." Maybe it's not a written law, but it's not an offense over there.

Also, under Hitler's martial law, he allowed the killing of millions of people from walks of life that didn't fall under his specific image of "perfection."

So, no, my friend. You're wrong. Completely wrong.

Sandman138

02-20-2008, 12:38 PM

It's hard for me to say yes...if I said yes that would mean I was approving of it, and I believe that homosexuality isn't something that's OK, according to my own beliefs - I believe that it is wrong.

I'd have to say no.

Allowing other people to live their lives in no way means that you have to approve of the way they choose to live their lives. It just means your not a totally useless wanker.:o

spike spiegel

02-20-2008, 01:08 PM

Why religion, though? I have Christian friends that have argued this, but when you get down to it:

The Bible really is nothing more than a storybook. It's not a way of life- man has interpreted it numerous times in numerous ways over the past hundreds of years.

Also, morals are only values that you find correct by and for yourself- finding something morally incorrect generally means you simply won't do it, and not that others cannot or should not. Their moral values may be completely different from yours, so why push for laws to ban practices that you find wrong? Isn't that a tad bit selfish?

Well for me, being a Christian, I see the Bible as a way of life. If I say that I'm a follower of Christ, and the Bible portrays homosexuality as something that is wrong, and does not in anyway justify it, then I'm going to walk that way. I'm under the authority of God. So if I say that homosexuality is OK, and that I'm supporting it, then I'm basically telling God that his law is wrong. So it becomes more than just my own moral value and my own view. It's God's moral law to me.

The reason behind it being that God created Adam and Eve, man and woman, and he "said it was good." And in Matthew Jesus calls this relationship sacred and something that is "joined by God." And so he says, "Therefore let not man seperate what God has joined together." Of course he's talking about divorce there, but in my mind it can be applied to the case of homosexuality as well. So in my beliefs, when God created marriage between a man and a woman, it was the only marriage that was meant to be, and no other kind of marriage could be justified.

So the reason why some Christians who are opposed to gay marriage might want to disallow and ban it, might be because they are obeying a higher authority, God, and not just their own view or opinion on things. It's a different mindset for that group. They don't believe they are being selfish by opposing gay marriage, they believe they are obeying God's law.

Figs

02-20-2008, 01:12 PM

Should have had a third option.

I still don't know where I stand on the issue.

While I don't agree with the homosexual lifestyle I still believe in live and let live. Not sure if it's a good thing or a bad thing for them to get married.

Captain_BluTac

02-20-2008, 01:16 PM

Every time a Christian joins the hype this place drops an IQ point.

spike spiegel

02-20-2008, 01:20 PM

Every time a Christian joins the hype this place drops an IQ point.

That's not too bad. Just 1 point.

Captain_BluTac

02-20-2008, 01:23 PM

You would be surprised how many idiots that call themselves Christians are here.

Memphis Slim

02-20-2008, 01:25 PM

SuBe

02-20-2008, 01:35 PM

Every time a Christian joins the hype this place drops an IQ point.
Way to be Tollerant! :up:

Captain_BluTac

02-20-2008, 01:43 PM

Way to be Tollerant! :up:

I will gladly tolerate people having private beliefs, but Christianity has quite grasped the fact that they have no right to vocalize their hateful beliefs.

spike spiegel

02-20-2008, 01:46 PM

I will gladly tolerate people having private beliefs, but Christianity has quite grasped the fact that they have no right to vocalize their hateful beliefs.

There's a book out there called "It's Not Christianity I mind, It's Christians I can't stand."

Don't worry though, not all believers are full of self-righteousness and bitter hatred and carry a pedestal with them wherever they go. Although Christians need to correct those attitudes in their fellow believers. Iron sharpens iron.

SuBe

02-20-2008, 01:49 PM

It goes both ways, you can't spew hatred for one group in one hand and ask for tolerance for yourself in the other.

I can understand that some people may be spewing at the mouth crap. But doing the same doesn't fix it.

bell110

02-20-2008, 01:52 PM

Isn't it ironic that none us (straight or homosexual) would exist, if not for a "heterosexual" union between two people?? :yay:

Fascinating...

You're mistaking marriage and procreation.

I have to say no. While I have nothing against someone who choses that lifestyle, I do not agree with it. Call it my religous beliefs if you want to, I just feel it is morally wrong.

And lets not get into a debate about the government having no right to say what is morally wrong. The government has every right to make laws based on moral beliefs. Murder, rape and robbery are all morally wrong and we have laws against them. I feel if you are going to allow gay marriage then why not aniamal marriage? How about making it ok to murder people? The point is you can take about the separation between church and state all you want, but the truth is all laws are based on what is morally right or wrong.

Murder, rape and robbery are crimes against other people. You can't compare them to gay marriage.

Well for me, being a Christian, I see the Bible as a way of life. If I say that I'm a follower of Christ, and the Bible portrays homosexuality as something that is wrong, and does not in anyway justify it, then I'm going to walk that way. I'm under the authority of God. So if I say that homosexuality is OK, and that I'm supporting it, then I'm basically telling God that his law is wrong. So it becomes more than just my own moral value and my own view. It's God's moral law to me.

The reason behind it being that God created Adam and Eve, man and woman, and he "said it was good." And in Matthew Jesus calls this relationship sacred and something that is "joined by God." And so he says, "Therefore let not man seperate what God has joined together." Of course he's talking about divorce there, but in my mind it can be applied to the case of homosexuality as well. So in my beliefs, when God created marriage between a man and a woman, it was the only marriage that was meant to be, and no other kind of marriage could be justified.

So the reason why some Christians who are opposed to gay marriage might want to disallow and ban it, might be because they are obeying a higher authority, God, and not just their own view or opinion on things. It's a different mindset for that group. They don't believe they are being selfish by opposing gay marriage, they believe they are obeying God's law.

1. The key words there are "to me". How would you feel if someone tried to ban christianity via amendment because they found it immoral?

2. Since divorce is immoral according to God, shouldn't it be banned aswell? I don't see christians trying to get an amendment against divorce.

Captain_BluTac

02-20-2008, 01:52 PM

Captain_BluTac

02-20-2008, 01:55 PM

To be honest, I have a simple question for any Christians, What is your favorite song, if your answer is not a hymn you are sinning as all music bar hymns are an affront to god.

SuBe

02-20-2008, 02:02 PM

Although that is logical, you can't apply logic to other people illogical hate.
I just don't like seeing people being disrespectful both ways. You know what I mean?

I can't give less of a **** if two guys want to get married, or whatever! What does it concern me? That doesn't change my love for my women one bit.

I agree with you that Christians need to settle their sins with god, and shut up about others lives, but you need to do the same. It is NOT Christianity, it is the person. The Person is the one that needs to change.

You need to be tolerant of their beliefs, just as they need to be tolerant of yours.

GoldenAgeHero

02-20-2008, 02:33 PM

To be honest, I have a simple question for any Christians, What is your favorite song, if your answer is not a hymn you are sinning as all music bar hymns are an affront to god.

everyone sins, no matter what thier beliefs. what matters is if your trying to do anything about it..are you trying to become a better person, do you have a personal relationship with god,have you accepted him into your heart?

when you point stuff out like that to try to make christians look bad or whatever..just makes you look petty and dumb..since your post proves nothing.

GoldenAgeHero

02-20-2008, 02:46 PM

You're mistaking marriage and procreation.

Murder, rape and robbery are crimes against other people. You can't compare them to gay marriage.

1. The key words there are "to me". How would you feel if someone tried to ban christianity via amendment because they found it immoral?

2. Since divorce is immoral according to God, shouldn't it be banned aswell? I don't see christians trying to get an amendment against divorce.

......:huh:

although im not well versed in the bible..I'm pretty sure there was a verse somewhere where god said it was okay.....not sure tho.

Captain_BluTac

02-20-2008, 02:49 PM

GAH read the sermon on the mount, its got a nice little section on divorce.

SuBe

02-20-2008, 03:02 PM

Why does this discussion have to be about the Bible? What does the Constitution say?

*skims the Constitution*

Nope, not in there. Hmm.... If there was a Constitution ban on Gay Marriage, that would be the first Amendment to remove a freedom. Just sayin'

Tally Man

02-20-2008, 03:04 PM

Sandman138

02-20-2008, 03:04 PM

Sandman138

02-20-2008, 03:05 PM

cough (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion)

And we all know how well that one worked out.

Tally Man

02-20-2008, 03:09 PM

Majik1387

02-20-2008, 03:09 PM

Continued from previous thread.
http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=304026

Yes, anyone who says otherwise has an idiotic ideal about marriage.

SuBe

02-20-2008, 03:10 PM

cough (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion)
*Cough* 21st *Cough*

Sandman138

02-20-2008, 03:13 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7255657.stm

Ironically enough I just saw this news story just as I was reading this thread. I can't fathom how someone can blame national disasters on homosexuality. You'd think God would have some more pressing issues like say Darfur instead of wasting his time sending natural disasters to countries that don't hate homosexuals.

But see you're missing the bigger picture of peace, love, and understanding. Don't you see? Orthodox Jews and Militant Muslims can come together... to hate on queers. The lord works in mysterious ways. Don't question it. Just stone the next *** you see. That's the power of faith.

Mr Sparkle

02-20-2008, 03:30 PM

Isn't it ironic that none us (straight or homosexual) would exist, if not for a "heterosexual" union between two people?? :yay:

Fascinating...

isn't it Ironic ( and on topic) that Gay marriage doesn't prevent heterosexual unions in any way shape or form?

yup, makes no sense really to be opposed to it, does it?
thanks man, every once in a while you make a good argument.
that was your argument right?
that being against gay marriage is dumb since it doesn't affect other marriages?

C. Lee

02-20-2008, 03:35 PM

I will gladly tolerate people having private beliefs, but Christianity has quite grasped the fact that they have no right to vocalize their hateful beliefs.

It seems that some people also haven't grasped the idea that constantly speaking hatred towards peole who say they are Christians is also expressing a hateful belief and should not be tolerated.

How about everyone here acting civil and stopping the hatred.

SuBe

02-20-2008, 03:39 PM

It seems that some people also haven't grasped the idea that constantly speaking hatred towards peole who say they are Christians is also expressing a hateful belief and should not be tolerated.

How about everyone here acting civil and stopping the hatred.
:up:

Cunning Stunts

02-20-2008, 05:10 PM

Well for me, being a Christian, I see the Bible as a way of life. If I say that I'm a follower of Christ, and the Bible portrays homosexuality as something that is wrong, and does not in anyway justify it, then I'm going to walk that way. I'm under the authority of God. So if I say that homosexuality is OK, and that I'm supporting it, then I'm basically telling God that his law is wrong. So it becomes more than just my own moral value and my own view. It's God's moral law to me.

The reason behind it being that God created Adam and Eve, man and woman, and he "said it was good." And in Matthew Jesus calls this relationship sacred and something that is "joined by God." And so he says, "Therefore let not man seperate what God has joined together." Of course he's talking about divorce there, but in my mind it can be applied to the case of homosexuality as well. So in my beliefs, when God created marriage between a man and a woman, it was the only marriage that was meant to be, and no other kind of marriage could be justified.

So the reason why some Christians who are opposed to gay marriage might want to disallow and ban it, might be because they are obeying a higher authority, God, and not just their own view or opinion on things. It's a different mindset for that group. They don't believe they are being selfish by opposing gay marriage, they believe they are obeying God's law.

Doesn't God love everyone, no matter what?

Doesn't God accept everyone, no matter what?

Doesn't God forgive everyone, no matter what?

If those are all answered with "yes," then what's your deal against homosexuality?

Also, I've previously done a little research on the Bible's interpretation of "Homosexuality laws." All of which point to the sole fact that the Bible is merely based on interpretation. You're not reading God's law, my friend. You're reading man's law that has God's name falsly endorsing it.

jks

02-20-2008, 05:19 PM

4 year old thread and still no one has ONE legitimate reason against it.

Bubonic

02-20-2008, 05:26 PM

Carcharodon

02-20-2008, 06:14 PM

Carcharodon

02-20-2008, 06:14 PM

4 year old thread and still no one has ONE legitimate reason against it.It's icky. :csad:

Tally Man

02-20-2008, 07:14 PM

I can't see why they would want to participate in a ceremony which is part of a religion that clearly loathes their existence.
Why does anyone need a stupid ceremony in order to be with someone they love, what a bunch of tripe.
If they want the extra hassles and cost, it should be their right.

I think they are more going for the legal recognition which comes from the civil contract of marriage that the government recognizes. Religion only seems to really come in on the sides that don't want to see any form of gay marriage happen.

spike spiegel

02-20-2008, 07:35 PM

Doesn't God love everyone, no matter what?

Doesn't God accept everyone, no matter what?

Doesn't God forgive everyone, no matter what?

If those are all answered with "yes," then what's your deal against homosexuality?

Also, I've previously done a little research on the Bible's interpretation of "Homosexuality laws." All of which point to the sole fact that the Bible is merely based on interpretation. You're not reading God's law, my friend. You're reading man's law that has God's name falsly endorsing it.

I believe that God does both of those things - yet despite His grace I also believe that we should strive to live as best as we can. I truly believe in grace, but I also believe in the moral law He's laid down.

Paul states it specifically in Romans and also in 1 Corinthians that homosexuality is sinful, and I believe in "God-breathed Scripture", that what is written in the Bible by man is inspired by God, and therefore it is God's law. That is what I believe in.

spike spiegel

02-20-2008, 07:47 PM

1. The key words there are "to me". How would you feel if someone tried to ban christianity via amendment because they found it immoral?

2. Since divorce is immoral according to God, shouldn't it be banned aswell? I don't see christians trying to get an amendment against divorce.

1. I wouldn't be thrilled at all about it. But the important thing to understand about my and other Christian's worldview is that it is their worldview. It doesn't just come down to "everyone can have their own opinion and take their lives into their hands any way they want." It's because we believe we are called to intervene and be the "salt and light" of the world. Christians want to change the world. They want a miracle, whether or not the world wants one.

2. Divorce is immoral except in the case of sexual immorality. And no, I don't see any Christians trying to ban divorce either.

EDIT: sorry, double post...

Memphis Slim

02-20-2008, 08:52 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis Slim http://forums.superherohype.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?p=14109182#post14109182)
Isn't it ironic that none us (straight or homosexual) would exist, if not for a "heterosexual" union between two people?? :yay:

Fascinating...

Bell10: You're mistaking marriage and procreation.

No I'm not. I'm talking sexual attraction that leads to the act....which leads to conception.....which leads to birth.

Marriage doesn't have to enter this equation. That's how people get here. You...me everybody. Man and woman. It's the normal way of things. And even gay people owe their very existence to heterosexual sex. And if the norm was homosexuality, man would die out.....go extinct. Becuase there would not be the first thing needed---heterosexual attraction.

Look....can we not agree that it is not normal? And why are you trying make the abnormal, normal?

I also get tired of the extreme and shrill rhetoric. Hatred...bigotry....homophobe.....so lame and trite. No one has yet answered this question: Since when does I disagree with you become I hate you?

Stuff like that is what keeps a serious dialogue from happening.

People keep asking, "How does this effect your family?" Look people...no man is an island. Societal change will eventually reach in and touch your household sooner or later....it may be thru some strange new cirriculum they're trying to teach at your kid's school. It may be some transexual teaching your impressionable child. It maybe thru some legislation that keeps your pastor from preaching against what is considered a sin for fear of "hate crime legislation". Gay marriage is the linch pin to everything else....to making this normal.

Sorry... I disagree. But that doesn't mean I hate homosexuals.

Mr. Wooden Alligator

02-20-2008, 09:09 PM

No.

QueerMike

02-20-2008, 09:23 PM

If they want to form their own little gay religon, that's fine, but I don't think current religon's or governments shoulfd conform to these people.

Addendum

02-20-2008, 09:34 PM

If gay marriage is allowed in the US, that in no way is making religion conform to homosexuals. That would violate the free exercise clause of the first amendment, and marriage is not only in the realm of religion. The government can perform marriages without a religion's involvement.

So this fear of the government making a little ol'e church in the "heartland" perform a gay marriage is just groundless.

And celldog's comment about gay marriage being a "linch pin to everything else" reads like the domino theory from the Vietnam War. The domino theory has since been proven false because the rest of Southeast Asia did not become communist after South Vietnam was taken by North Vietnam.

Mr. Socko

02-20-2008, 09:41 PM

Aye..........yie, yie.

Mr Sparkle

02-20-2008, 09:43 PM

.
Look....can we not agree that it is not normal? And why are you trying make the abnormal, normal?

no we can't.
why are you trying to make something that YOU particularly don't like "abnormal" ?

Since when does I disagree with you become I hate you?

you are welcome to disagree.
you can disagree with gay marriage all you like, you can disagree with homosexuality all you like.
you're entitled to, and that merely makes you misguided, not necesarily a hateful person.
however, this is not about me and you agreeing, this is about people being denied something based upon that disagreement, being denied equal status as humans, because you deem them " abnormal"
of course, you would agree with this would you not?
this is not about you accepting homosexuality, this is not about you thinking it's right.
this is about basic rights under the law that certain couples are entitled to, that they are being denied because you disagree with them, while you suffer no consequense from this disagreement,

People keep asking, "How does this effect your family?" Look people...no man is an island. Societal change will eventually reach in and touch your household sooner or later....it may be thru some strange new cirriculum they're trying to teach at your kid's school. It may be some transexual teaching your impressionable child. It maybe thru some legislation that keeps your pastor from preaching against what is considered a sin for fear of "hate crime legislation". Gay marriage is the linch pin to everything else....to making this normal.

Sorry... I disagree. But that doesn't mean I hate homosexuals.

so, you actually have no reason for it then?
because you keep talking about serious dialogue, but I and others have asked how it affects you and this is what you bring to the table?
how is a transexual teacher related to Gay marriage?
how is hate crime legislation related to Gay marriage?
in the end after all the rhetoric you talk about disagreement, you talk about dialogue, but you wish to impose your will upon others and your rationale is fear of them imposing on you?

that is bizarre, that's illogical, irrational, and you should at least realize this.

I believe in "God-breathed Scripture", that what is written in the Bible by man is inspired by God, and therefore it is God's law. That is what I believe in.

I grow weary of this "most christians = ignorant of their own religion" argument, so instead of making that the basis for my response I'll ask,
do you therefore follow every aspect of the Bible as directed by it?
because frankly that's difficult and violent, and I seriously wonder how you could.

Mr Sparkle

02-20-2008, 09:45 PM

the largest problem is that the people making the argument against gay marriage all act like law is the only thing stopping thousands of dudes and chicks from turning gay.
just, reeks of repressed homosexuality.

Cunning Stunts

02-20-2008, 09:55 PM

I tried saying your screen-name three times in quick succession. I got my mouth washed out with soap. :csad:

Bwahaha. Was it scented soap?:o

QueerMike

02-20-2008, 10:00 PM

Mr Sparkle

02-20-2008, 10:01 PM

The government should not go out of it'd way either to make same-sex marriages legal. Meaning: They shouldn't trouble themselve with making new laws or modifying old one.

why?

Cunning Stunts

02-20-2008, 10:02 PM

1. I wouldn't be thrilled at all about it. But the important thing to understand about my and other Christian's worldview is that it is their worldview. It doesn't just come down to "everyone can have their own opinion and take their lives into their hands any way they want." It's because we believe we are called to intervene and be the "salt and light" of the world. Christians want to change the world. They want a miracle, whether or not the world wants one.

2. Divorce is immoral except in the case of sexual immorality. And no, I don't see any Christians trying to ban divorce either.

EDIT: sorry, double post...

Yeah, and you obviously didn't read my other posts. Morals are NOT what is right and what is wrong, they are YOUR OWN choices made based on your lessons you've learned and your experiences.

It's pretty selfish of you to push YOUR OWN values on other people who don't hold the same values as you. Apparently they didn't teach Christians to think these days.

Hence why I left the church.

Majik1387

02-20-2008, 10:28 PM

If they want to form their own little gay religon, that's fine, but I don't think current religon's or governments shoulfd conform to these people.
What are you going on about?:huh:
Aye..........yie, yie.
You stole my sentiments!:cmad:
The government should not go out of it'd way either to make same-sex marriages legal. Meaning: They shouldn't trouble themselve with making new laws or modifying old one.
why?
Yes, tell us why QueerMike...:whatever:

QueerMike

02-20-2008, 10:30 PM

why?

Why should the government please the minority when it upsets the majority?

Majik1387

02-20-2008, 10:36 PM

Cuz the gay population isn't really much of a minority.:o

Mr Sparkle

02-20-2008, 10:40 PM

Why should the government please the minority when it upsets the majority?

because it has done so before.
pretty much the reason government is there, so it doesn't become "mob rule":cwink:

Jerry!

02-20-2008, 10:54 PM

Why should the government please the minority when it upsets the majority?

You're ****ing hilarious. I really didn't think someone named "QueerMike" would have a problem with the gays getting married. He also asks people if they are gay when they don't vote for the movies he likes in his tournament. Oh no Little Miss Sunshine advanced!! The whole world has gone gay!

The Senator

02-20-2008, 11:16 PM

The religious argument should be completely a moot point now. Several religious denominations, including the Lutheran church, the United Church of Christ, and the Unitarian Universalists, have expressed their belief that two members of the same sex should have the ability to marry if they so wish. Politicians have used religion as the foundation for their argument against gay marriage, but if several religious denominations are willing to marry gays, doesn't that speak volumes?

I personally think marriage should be a religious ceremony, and that any decision regarding gay marriage should be left to the church. That said, if you're a member of a denomination which doesn't support gay marriage, or if you're someone who doesn't follow any religion at all, you should be able to get a civil union. I think civil unions should be available to all people, regardless of gender, sexuality or religious affiliation. That way, two people can be together if they so wish, with the same benefits a married couple is entitled to, but without interfering with the whole "religious" debate.

The Senator

02-20-2008, 11:18 PM

The government should not go out of it'd way either to make same-sex marriages legal. Meaning: They shouldn't trouble themselve with making new laws or modifying old one.

The government also shouldn't go out of its way to make same-sex marriage illegal. Amending the constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman is a ridiculous waste of time and taxpayers money on a non-issue which doesn't really affect anyone at all-- except the gay people who will be denied the right to their own personal happiness.

The Senator

02-20-2008, 11:28 PM

No I'm not. I'm talking sexual attraction that leads to the act....which leads to conception.....which leads to birth.

Marriage doesn't have to enter this equation. That's how people get here. You...me everybody. Man and woman. It's the normal way of things. And even gay people owe their very existence to heterosexual sex. And if the norm was homosexuality, man would die out.....go extinct. Becuase there would not be the first thing needed---heterosexual attraction.

Look....can we not agree that it is not normal? And why are you trying make the abnormal, normal?

I also get tired of the extreme and shrill rhetoric. Hatred...bigotry....homophobe.....so lame and trite. No one has yet answered this question: Since when does I disagree with you become I hate you?

Stuff like that is what keeps a serious dialogue from happening.

People keep asking, "How does this effect your family?" Look people...no man is an island. Societal change will eventually reach in and touch your household sooner or later....it may be thru some strange new cirriculum they're trying to teach at your kid's school. It may be some transexual teaching your impressionable child. It maybe thru some legislation that keeps your pastor from preaching against what is considered a sin for fear of "hate crime legislation". Gay marriage is the linch pin to everything else....to making this normal.

Sorry... I disagree. But that doesn't mean I hate homosexuals.

So, would you be against civil unions for homosexuals, which would give them the same rights and benefits as a married couple? I mean, this isn't a perfect world. It will never conform to your standards, or my standards for that matter. Gays will always be here, as much as that may disdain some people. And to be perfectly honest, some of us don't have an agenda. My only agenda is that I should be able to be with the man that I love throughout the remainder of my life. I have no desire to turn children gay, to spread the idea of sin and sodomy through the streets... I want to live my day-to-day life with the person I love at my side. And if something happens to me, I want to be assured that he gets whatever benefits or life insurance policy or what have you which he would be rightfully entitled to, as my partner and my lover. Would you be against a government union which wouldn't bring religion into the equation whatsoever?

Sandman138

02-20-2008, 11:29 PM

Unitarian Universalists,

Probably not the best example to use. Most UUs don't consider themselves Christian and I have yet to meet a Christian that wasn't UCC that wanted to be associated with us in any way.

spike spiegel

02-20-2008, 11:30 PM

I grow weary of this "most christians = ignorant of their own religion" argument, so instead of making that the basis for my response I'll ask,
do you therefore follow every aspect of the Bible as directed by it?
because frankly that's difficult and violent, and I seriously wonder how you could.

What part of the Bible directs a Christian to be violent? I'm not sure what you mean, or where you got that idea.

The Senator

02-20-2008, 11:35 PM

Probably not the best example to use. Most UUs don't consider themselves Christian and I have yet to meet a Christian that wasn't UCC that wanted to be associated with us in any way.

I wasn't talking about Christian denominations explicitly, I was talking about religious denominations as a whole. I am Unitarian Universalist myself, so I felt obligated to include that.

Ring Deacon

02-20-2008, 11:48 PM

Not true. For starters, read my previous post, and if you're coming back for seconds, abortion is under heat as to whether or not it's morally right or wrong, yet it's allowed. Not making my own judging statement here, but that's a prime example in my opinion.

Also, in Africa, female circumcision is allowed by their "law." Maybe it's not a written law, but it's not an offense over there.

Also, under Hitler's martial law, he allowed the killing of millions of people from walks of life that didn't fall under his specific image of "perfection."

So, no, my friend. You're wrong. Completely wrong.

Well if you read US history, this country was founded by people seeking religous freedom. The laws we put into place were and are based on the laws that are in the bible. The bible whether you believe in God or not teaches us right from wrong, and teaches morals. The laws put forth by God in the bible are still used today in this and most countries.

Yes there are some F'ed up laws in some other countries, and there are some here too. (partial birth abortion for one is just wrong) But the fact remains that our laws in this country were based on the bible, and still are. We have separated church from state but faith and state still walk hand in hand.

Now while there are a few churches that are supporting gay marriage mine isn't one of them. Most are doing from a stand point of wanting more members to join their church and not from a true supportive nature. Now if you believe in the bible as it is writen then you believe being gay is a sin, it says so in many parts of the bible. Now while I don't hate anyone and I have a few gay friends that doesn't mean I have to agree with what they do in their personal life.

Now on to what else I have said. Ok fine lest say we make same sex marriage legal. Who is to sat that someone isn't going to want to marry their dog, or a tree or maybe their car. Now while these people are crazy for wanting to do that who are we to judge them? they feel strongly about it so they should be aloud to do it. How about making it legal to sell drugs? After all it isn't the drug dealers fault that his buyers are adicted. So that should be ok to do even if someone ODs. Oh lets get back to marriage, why not make it legal to have as many wives or husbands as you want at the same time. I mean do you love your 20th wife any less then your first? I don't think so. Oh and lest let borthers and sisters marry too, I mean how else are we going to make sure our blood line stays pure?

All I am saying is to change this law you have to change what is morally right and wrong. and no one in the government ( even with church and state being separate) is going to stand up to the bible.

Star

02-20-2008, 11:51 PM

It's so depressing that there is actually 120 people who voted 'No'.

Jerry!

02-20-2008, 11:55 PM

Now on to what else I have said. Ok fine lest say we make same sex marriage legal. Who is to sat that someone isn't going to want to marry their dog, or a tree or maybe their car. Now while these people are crazy for wanting to do that who are we to judge them? they feel strongly about it so they should be aloud to do it. How about making it legal to sell drugs? After all it isn't the drug dealers fault that his buyers are adicted. So that should be ok to do even if someone ODs. Oh lets get back to marriage, why not make it legal to have as many wives or husbands as you want at the same time. I mean do you love your 20th wife any less then your first? I don't think so. Oh and lest let borthers and sisters marry too, I mean how else are we going to make sure our blood line stays pure?

People wanting to marry their dogs, animals, whatever, that all exists NOW. Legalizing gay marriage isn't going to suddenly have that kind of effect, it's a stupid assumption to make. How did you manage to compare drug dealers to this? Drug dealers literally are poisoning people, gay marriage doesn't do that in the least. This is just crazy. You want to talk about stretching, here is a prime example.

The Senator

02-21-2008, 12:04 AM

Well if you read US history, this country was founded by people seeking religous freedom. The laws we put into place were and are based on the laws that are in the bible. The bible whether you believe in God or not teaches us right from wrong, and teaches morals. The laws put forth by God in the bible are still used today in this and most countries.

Yes there are some F'ed up laws in some other countries, and there are some here too. (partial birth abortion for one is just wrong) But the fact remains that our laws in this country were based on the bible, and still are. We have separated church from state but faith and state still walk hand in hand.

Now while there are a few churches that are supporting gay marriage mine isn't one of them. Most are doing from a stand point of wanting more members to join their church and not from a true supportive nature. Now if you believe in the bible as it is writen then you believe being gay is a sin, it says so in many parts of the bible. Now while I don't hate anyone and I have a few gay friends that doesn't mean I have to agree with what they do in their personal life.

Now on to what else I have said. Ok fine lest say we make same sex marriage legal. Who is to sat that someone isn't going to want to marry their dog, or a tree or maybe their car. Now while these people are crazy for wanting to do that who are we to judge them? they feel strongly about it so they should be aloud to do it. How about making it legal to sell drugs? After all it isn't the drug dealers fault that his buyers are adicted. So that should be ok to do even if someone ODs. Oh lets get back to marriage, why not make it legal to have as many wives or husbands as you want at the same time. I mean do you love your 20th wife any less then your first? I don't think so. Oh and lest let borthers and sisters marry too, I mean how else are we going to make sure our blood line stays pure?

All I am saying is to change this law you have to change what is morally right and wrong. and no one in the government ( even with church and state being separate) is going to stand up to the bible.

None of your points are a clear enough argument as to why gay marriage should remain illegal. When two men or two women decide to get married, you're talking about two living, breathing, loving human beings embracing each other in a consensual relationship. People who want to marry a tree, a dog, or an inanimate object don't have the right to do so because the objects they want to marry don't have the ability to consent to the act in the first place.

Our government shouldn't have the right to oppress homosexuals because they think the act is 'icky.' They shouldn't use religion as a shield when we're not supposed to use religion as the reason to vote for or against bills. Our country is also founded on the idea that one is entitled to his or her own personal liberty, as long as it doesn't harm those around them. My decision to marry a man here in DC isn't going to affect Mr. and Mrs. Smith's marriage in Wisconsin. And I think that's the point many anti-gay marriage folks are missing: Our quest for marriage and overall equality will not effect your lives in the least bit. It will have zero effect on your family life, or how your family evolves over time. Your family is your own responsibility, as are the choices you make in your own life. However, your decision to constantly deny us the rights to live as happily as we wish are affecting our lives. You are denying us the right to marry the person we feel closest to. You're denying us the opportunity to be joined in matrimony, to express our love to the fullest extent. That's what you fail to see.

Of course, let me address some of your other outrageous claims while I'm at it:

Incest is something you should know is wrong from birth. I'm not going to touch that one, because it doesn't need to be debated. Polygamy... well, I'm not going to touch that one, either, because there is no correlation between two men or two women getting married and the want for a man to have six wives. Neither one of these issues has anything to do with gay marriage, which is the issue we're here to discuss. We're not here to discuss polygamy or incest or relationships with inanimate objects, in the best of my knowledge. You're using that as a fear tactic to divert attention from the real issue here, and that's the ability of two people to love one another regardless of gender.

Mr Sparkle

02-21-2008, 12:09 AM

What part of the Bible directs a Christian to be violent? I'm not sure what you mean, or where you got that idea.

the bible.
the fact that you don't know about it tells me all I need to know.
carry on.

Mr Sparkle

02-21-2008, 12:12 AM

Now on to what else I have said. Ok fine lest say we make same sex marriage legal. Who is to sat that someone isn't going to want to marry their dog, or a tree or maybe their car. Now while these people are crazy for wanting to do that who are we to judge them? they feel strongly about it so they should be aloud to do it. How about making it legal to sell drugs? After all it isn't the drug dealers fault that his buyers are adicted. So that should be ok to do even if someone ODs. Oh lets get back to marriage, why not make it legal to have as many wives or husbands as you want at the same time. I mean do you love your 20th wife any less then your first? I don't think so. Oh and lest let borthers and sisters marry too, I mean how else are we going to make sure our blood line stays pure?

so, you're comparing two consenting, loving, adult participants to inanimate objects? the love that they feel for each other to drug addiction and incest?

wow, yeah.
no Homophobia there at all.

The Senator

02-21-2008, 12:17 AM

Well if you read US history, this country was founded by people seeking religous freedom.

This needed its own post.

You're right: This country was founded on religious freedom. That said, the Bible shouldn't be the supreme dictator of the laws which govern this country. Therefore, the fact that I am not a Christian should mean that I don't have to abide by laws which are religious in nature, especially in a country which has prided itself on religious tolerance and acceptance. Because of that, the Bible's argument against gay relationships should never be entered into discussions on gay marriage whatsoever, because it is irrelevant to those who do not wish to abide by the conduct set forth in the Old and New Testaments. What the Bible says does not have anything to do with how I live my life. While I may live my life, in theory, by some of the ideology expressed within the pages of that sacred text, I do not look to the Bible as a source of inspiration or guidance. The fact that I don't means that I shouldn't have to succumb to laws in this country which are rooted in verses which go against my lifestyle.

In a sense, using the Bible to dictate laws is a way to promote religious oppression. You're oppressing the people who don't believe in that doctrine. And while that may be a minority of the people in this country, it never the less forms a strong argument, that you can't have equality if you refuse to acknowledge every single citizen.

Mr Sparkle

02-21-2008, 12:22 AM

seriously, all you guys saying that gay marriage shouldn't be legal because what's to stop people from marrying inanimate objects, or maybe selling drugs, or hey, transsexuals from warping your children?

great arguments.
makes a ton of sense.
like back when black people were legally slaves and the bible ( which advocates slavery and gives guidelines on it) was used to try and perpetuate it?

you guys should've been around telling people about how freeing coloreds was a step away from having rape being legal and some "negro" instill some " extreme agenda" in your pure white schoolchildren.
seriously.
makes a ton of sense, and you could've prefaced it all with "now, this doesn't mean I hate black people, it's just my beliefs tell me that they are less than human, and thus not deserving the same rights as me....but doesn't mean I hate them"

the south would have risen again :csad:

Mr Sparkle

02-21-2008, 12:23 AM

Well if you read US history, this country was founded by people seeking religous freedom.

and gays.
cuz...they were around back then you know?
I'm sure they had a hand in it.

muertevilla

02-21-2008, 12:24 AM

dont bother my ass none...mine's not the one gettin pounded :)

Mr Sparkle

02-21-2008, 12:24 AM

Mr Sparkle

02-21-2008, 12:25 AM

dont bother my ass none...mine's not the one gettin pounded :)

so, you're a top?:huh:

Jerry!

02-21-2008, 12:37 AM

I find it adorable that I can't call someone an Idiot for fear of warping a kid's fragile psyche, yet clearly softcore pornography is being promoted via the banner at the top of my screen.

just precious.

Mine is for an online degree. But the woman's face in it looks like she may be a porn star.

Majik1387

02-21-2008, 12:37 AM

I find it adorable that I can't call someone an Idiot for fear of warping a kid's fragile psyche, yet clearly softcore pornography is being promoted via the banner at the top of my screen.

just precious.

Jack9 ads?

Yeah, just gotta love the hype for not letting us post about topics that can relate to the ads here.

As for the idiot thing, some people need to be knocked down a few pegs.:o:cwink::yay:

Memphis Slim

02-21-2008, 05:36 AM

So, would you be against civil unions for homosexuals, which would give them the same rights and benefits as a married couple? I mean, this isn't a perfect world. It will never conform to your standards, or my standards for that matter. Gays will always be here, as much as that may disdain some people.

A question was asked...."How does this effect my family?" I answered the question. The effect may not be immediate. But we are fooling ourselves if we think that societal issues won't touch our homes in some way. Civil Unions are a difference with no "distinction". Will it stop there? No. They'll ask for more. Not asking for this world to conform to my standards. But it seems that you have no problem with homosexuals telling the society to conform to their standards. double standard here?

And to be perfectly honest, some of us don't have an agenda. My only agenda is that I should be able to be with the man that I love throughout the remainder of my life. I have no desire to turn children gay, to spread the idea of sin and sodomy through the streets... I want to live my day-to-day life with the person I love at my side.

Go right ahead. Just don't ask society to sanction it. And maybe you are not running thru the streets trying to turn small children gay. But you can't tell me that you are against the new "tolerance" cirriculum some school districts are trying to push on our kids. If kids think it's the same as mommy and daddy, they might explore it later.

And if something happens to me, I want to be assured that he gets whatever benefits or life insurance policy or what have you which he would be rightfully entitled to, as my partner and my lover.

That's what wills are for. You can will your possesions to anyone you want.

Would you be against a government union which wouldn't bring religion into the equation whatsoever?

I look at it as what is best for society as a whole. This is not normal. And no one has still answered my question. why are we trying to make the abmormal normal. What would happen if everyone was homosexual?

Mr. Socko

02-21-2008, 05:40 AM

Why should the government please the minority when it upsets the majority?

Then why, in 1862, were a very small minority of America, called African American slaves, declared free from any and all states in the Confederacy?

You provide and weakest and most moot point in this entire thread.

Now on to what else I have said. Ok fine lest say we make same sex marriage legal. Who is to sat that someone isn't going to want to marry their dog, or a tree or maybe their car.
Firstly, the topic of same sex marriage has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not someone else will want to marry a dog or a tree.

Secondly, if the tree begins to talk and give it's consent for marriage because it also loves that person, I say go for it.

I find it adorable that I can't call someone an Idiot for fear of warping a kid's fragile psyche, yet clearly softcore pornography is being promoted via the banner at the top of my screen.

just precious.

I made a thread about it last night. Some mod decides to delete it. Shh, don't call it out.:cwink:

Memphis Slim

02-21-2008, 05:41 AM

Memphis Slim

02-21-2008, 05:43 AM

Then why, in 1862, were a very small minority of America, called African American slaves, declared free from any and all states in the Confederacy?

You provide and weakest and most moot point in this entire thread.

Because being black has nothing to do with sexuality. :cmad:

Mr. Socko

02-21-2008, 05:46 AM

Ha, I was just smugly retaliating buddy.

And I can't answer your question, I bring up neither and would never try to attack any real religion.

Jerry!

02-21-2008, 05:52 AM

I look at it as what is best for society as a whole. This is not normal. And no one has still answered my question. why are we trying to make the abmormal normal. What would happen if everyone was homosexual?

Nobody is trying to do that. You're basically saying "They are trying to make people gay", which is ridiculous. No one is trying to make you or other people gay Memphis. All they ask is for the same rights. Is it really that hard to understand? At one time, and sadly to some degree today, it wasn't considered "normal" for women to have the same rights and opprotunities as men, it wasn't considered "normal" for whites and blacks to co-exist together. If that's normal, then **** normal, it's a bunch of bull**** is what it is. Not everyone is going to magically turn gay and then oh no here comes the end of mankind. Just like the end of the world didn't happen when women got equal rights and the slaves were freed. Your thinking is backwards.

The Senator

02-21-2008, 06:37 AM

Memphis Slim

02-21-2008, 07:53 AM

Nobody is trying to do that. You're basically saying "They are trying to make people gay", which is ridiculous. No one is trying to make you or other people gay Memphis.

Did I say you were trying to make everybody homosexual? No. But you are trying to make people (especially young people) think it's normal.

All they ask is for the same rights. Is it really that hard to understand?

statistics show that most homosexual make higher incomes than most. They more educated....thus live a pretty good lifestyle. They can live anywhere they want. Work anywhere they want. Hold political office.

At one time, and sadly to some degree today, it wasn't considered "normal" for women to have the same rights and opprotunities as men, it wasn't considered "normal" for whites and blacks to co-exist together.

Not the same and you know it. Basic human rights afforded to blacks and women were not based on who they slept with. And you have those same rights.

If that's normal, then **** normal, it's a bunch of bull**** is what it is. Not everyone is going to magically turn gay and then oh no here comes the end of mankind. Just like the end of the world didn't happen when women got equal rights and the slaves were freed. Your thinking is backwards.

I know that not everybody is going to turn gay. :whatever: I presented that scenario because if it was normal and beneficial to mankind, it could stand up under that scenario and not collapse upon itself. Mankind could not survive. The heterosexual union "benefits" mankind. It keeps us going. You wouldn't be here without it.

Memphis Slim

02-21-2008, 07:54 AM

Even when I'm civil to you, you defecate all over the original points I made.

How's that?

Ring Deacon

02-21-2008, 08:20 AM

Ok lets talk about consent to get married. there are still cultures in the world and in America that people get married simply by the consent of both families fathers. So that means there is no love or consent of the partys involed, they marry just because Daddy says so. And in many cases they are young girls in their pre-teens marrying men in their 40's, so it is only the man that consents by paying the girls family for her. So with that consent has nothing to do with marriage. That means it could be legal to marry a pet or a tree, if you consent it makes it ok.

Now someone on here said that since they don't believe in God they should be able to pick and choose the laws they want to follow. Well since ALL of our laws are based on the bible, have fun picking your laws.

I agree that sex with animals is wrong, but there are some that think it is ok. Just like there are some that think being gay is ok. If we can't stop same sex marriage then you can stop human / animal marriage. Who are we to say what is wrong or right.

Now on to slaves. The slaves in the bible were not all black. In fact most were of the same race as their master, so lets not make this a race thing. Slaves in the bible were treated better the slaves in the US in our early history. The bible says that the master is to treat his slaves kindly, and most did. But just like here you had a few jerks that didn't follow the laws there were about slaves. Hence the Exodus.

I know that it is a hard pill to swallow but the subject of same sex marriage will be debated on till the end of time. both sides will never agree. Even if the law is changed.

On a side note if your gay why would want to get married? Consider yourself lucky, no marriage means no divorce. And no divorce means you don't lose half you stuff when the marriage ends. Straight people are not that lucky.

Bloc Party

02-21-2008, 09:25 AM

How's that?

It's pretty absurd that what you consider abnormal should be ignored. Tough cookies if you're born left handed or disabled. That's not normal, therefore those people should have no rights.

You seem to ignore that gays are not interested in converting straight people, only in equal rights. That whole "all men are created equal" thing.

Ok lets talk about consent to get married. there are still cultures in the world and in America that people get married simply by the consent of both families fathers. So that means there is no love or consent of the partys involed, they marry just because Daddy says so. And in many cases they are young girls in their pre-teens marrying men in their 40's, so it is only the man that consents by paying the girls family for her. So with that consent has nothing to do with marriage. That means it could be legal to marry a pet or a tree, if you consent it makes it ok.

Children cannot consent to anything, their legal guardians hold all their rights. Also, I don't know what form of arranged marriage you're using as an example. A Muslim friend of mine had an arranged marriage at 17, and the guy was 19. The women must give their consent, and can back out at any time.

On that note, no, it's not like marrying a tree. Marriage is between two humans, both with legal rights and standing.

Now someone on here said that since they don't believe in God they should be able to pick and choose the laws they want to follow. Well since ALL of our laws are based on the bible, have fun picking your laws. Huh? Our laws are based off common law from England, and natural law came from the Greeks, before Christ.

I agree that sex with animals is wrong, but there are some that think it is ok. Just like there are some that think being gay is ok. If we can't stop same sex marriage then you can stop human / animal marriage. Who are we to say what is wrong or right. So you'd rather have it that no people have any rights as opposed to people having equal rights? Notice I used "people" and not "animals". Animals cannot agree to marriage.

Now on to slaves. The slaves in the bible were not all black. In fact most were of the same race as their master, so lets not make this a race thing. Slaves in the bible were treated better the slaves in the US in our early history. The bible says that the master is to treat his slaves kindly, and most did. But just like here you had a few jerks that didn't follow the laws there were about slaves. Hence the Exodus. "Yeah, I've got some slaves. But don't worry, I treat them kindly!"

I know that it is a hard pill to swallow but the subject of same sex marriage will be debated on till the end of time. both sides will never agree. Even if the law is changed.You don't know the future. I wonder if 50 years down the line you can come back to this thread on this website and see if things have changed.

On a side note if your gay why would want to get married? Consider yourself lucky, no marriage means no divorce. And no divorce means you don't lose half you stuff when the marriage ends. Straight people are not that lucky.If you're straight why would you want to get married? And I'm guessing you've never heard of prenuptial agreements...

Ring Deacon

02-21-2008, 09:44 AM

You don't know the future. I wonder if 50 years down the line you can come back to this thread on this website and see if things have changed.

No but I know human nature. And it is in our nature to disagree and have our own opinions. That is something that will never change.

If you're straight why would you want to get married? And I'm guessing you've never heard of prenuptial agreements...

I was making a joke. Besides I have been married for going on 6 yeras now.

xisaacx

02-21-2008, 09:49 AM

Same sex marriage doesnt affect anyone. If they pay taxes , let them do what they want.

Cunning Stunts

02-21-2008, 10:34 AM

Knightsaber Priss

02-21-2008, 10:49 AM

How about "I don't care." All I care about is getting myself married to a decent guy right now. I don't care about anyone else's problems.

Carcharodon

02-21-2008, 11:14 AM

And by the way,,,,,,for you Christian bashers. Did you forget that Islam is against homosexuality too??

Down right violent towards it? I notice that Islam is never brought up by any of you in this conversation about homosexuals.That might have something to do with the fact that the overwhelming number of people in control of our government right now are Christian....I know of no Muslims in any high position of power. :huh:

If we wanted to legalize gay marriage in ****ing Iraq or Iran, your point would be completely relevant. Since we're not, it's downright retarded. Try again. :up:

SuBe

02-21-2008, 11:23 AM

That might have something to do with the fact that the overwhelming number of people in control of our government right now are Christian....I know of no Muslims in any high position of power. :huh:

If we wanted to legalize gay marriage in ****ing Iraq or Iran, your point would be completely relevant. Since we're not, it's downright retarded. Try again. :up:

Hey, remember what Ahmadinejad, they don't have Homosexuals in Iran.

Mr Sparkle

02-21-2008, 11:37 AM

And by the way,,,,,,for you Christian bashers. Did you forget that Islam is against homosexuality too??

whenever a Muslim comes by the thread and says "no" based on his/her beliefs I will be sure and tell him how stupid it is for him to do so.
good job on underscoring the similarities between the two religions though.
also, it's precious that people that don't believe in your God and your religious rules are " christian bashers" yet they don't seek to repress your rights as a human being.
you however want to deny people access to the same rights as you.
guess in your mind that makes YOU a " gay basher"
tre ironique (that's not really french)

I look at it as what is best for society as a whole. This is not normal. And no one has still answered my question. why are we trying to make the abmormal normal. What would happen if everyone was homosexual?

lies.
I answered it a page back.

why are you trying to make something that YOU particularly don't like "abnormal" ?

you're working under an erroneous asumption.
I mean, just because the only thing stopping YOU from going all "village people" and stuff, doesn't mean the same goes for everyone.
the day Gay Marriage is allowed everywhere I'll still like women.
guess you won't.

more for me I guess :huh:

Mr Sparkle

02-21-2008, 11:42 AM

I agree that sex with animals is wrong, but there are some that think it is ok. Just like there are some that think being gay is ok. If we can't stop same sex marriage then you can stop human / animal marriage. Who are we to say what is wrong or right.

again.
gay marriage involves two consenting participants.
are you really dumb enough to compare gay people to those who engage in bestiality?
please say you're not THAT dumb.
this isn't about us disagreeing, this is about you making and absurd argument.
" hey, if we let black people go free, what's to stop people from freeing tigers in the zoo?! the tigers would eat all of us!!!"
:whatever:

On a side note if your gay why would want to get married? Consider yourself lucky, no marriage means no divorce. And no divorce means you don't lose half you stuff when the marriage ends. Straight people are not that lucky.

haha! yeah, why did women want equal rights under the law anyway.
all that stress and decision making?
they get to be pretty little fixtures with no responsibilities till the end of time and they throw it away?

ha! some people.

SuBe

02-21-2008, 11:43 AM

whenever a Muslim comes by the thread and says "no" based on his/her beliefs I will be sure and tell him how stupid it is for him to do so.
good job on underscoring the similarities between the two religions though.
also, it's precious that people that don't believe in your God and your religious rules are " christian bashers" yet they don't seek to repress your rights as a human being.
you however want to deny people access to the same rights as you.
guess in your mind that makes YOU a " gay basher"
tre ironique (that's not really french)

lies.
[/color][/color]I answered it a page back.

you're working under an erroneous asumption.
I mean, just because the only thing stopping YOU from going all "village people" and stuff, doesn't mean the same goes for everyone.
the day Gay Marriage is allowed everywhere I'll still like women.
guess you won't.

more for me I guess :huh:

Sparky. You and I agree for once.

bell110

02-21-2008, 11:43 AM

Because being black has nothing to do with sexuality. :cmad:

No, but you're using the same rhetoric as they did on why blacks shouldn't be free or have rights.

"Imagine how it will effect society"
"What if a black person teaches my child?"
"It will teach our children that marrying outside your race is ok"

And by the way,,,,,,for you Christian bashers. Did you forget that Islam is against homosexuality too??

Down right violent towards it? I notice that Islam is never brought up by any of you in this conversation about homosexuals.

WOW, where did that come from?

I guess your right, since Islam is against it, maybe we should ban gay marriage. :huh:

Mr Sparkle

02-21-2008, 11:47 AM

Sparky. You and I agree for once.

we agree on a lot more than you think.
plus, you're a lot younger than me, I was pretty far right at one point in my life and have since mellowed.

you'd be surprised at my answeres to some of the questions being posed here 15 years ago.

SuBe

02-21-2008, 11:58 AM

we agree on a lot more than you think.
plus, you're a lot younger than me, I was pretty far right at one point in my life and have since mellowed.

you'd be surprised at my answeres to some of the questions being posed here 15 years ago.
We probably could have real interesting conversations then.

Speedball

02-21-2008, 11:58 AM

Mr. Sparkle...would you marry me?:woot: :woot:
Joking...
I said yes, because...well...how else am I gonna get married? To a woman? Eww...

spike spiegel

02-21-2008, 12:03 PM

the bible.
the fact that you don't know about it tells me all I need to know.
carry on.

I asked you the question because the Bible doesn't instruct Christians to be violent. I'm wondering where you got that idea. :huh: Throw it at me. I'm curious to see where you're getting that from.

Mr Sparkle

02-21-2008, 12:19 PM

I asked you the question because the Bible doesn't instruct Christians to be violent. I'm wondering where you got that idea. :huh: Throw it at me. I'm curious to see where you're getting that from.

again.
the bible.
I have read it rather studiously ( my mom's idea, don't ask...catholics are wacky) and there's some interesting stuff there.
give it a read.

Sandman138

02-21-2008, 12:21 PM

Hey, remember what Ahmadinejad, they don't have Homosexuals in Iran.

That's cause if they find any, they publicly hang them. See, they know how to deal with this problem. I think we could all be happier if those damn rotten queers would go away and we could stop worrying about the children. :up::up:

Sandman138

02-21-2008, 12:23 PM

whenever a Muslim comes by the thread and says "no" based on his/her beliefs I will be sure and tell him how stupid it is for him to do so.
good job on underscoring the similarities between the two religions though.
also, it's precious that people that don't believe in your God and your religious rules are " christian bashers" yet they don't seek to repress your rights as a human being.
you however want to deny people access to the same rights as you.
guess in your mind that makes YOU a " gay basher"
tre ironique (that's not really french)

lies.
[/COLOR][/COLOR]I answered it a page back.

you're working under an erroneous asumption.
I mean, just because the only thing stopping YOU from going all "village people" and stuff, doesn't mean the same goes for everyone.
the day Gay Marriage is allowed everywhere I'll still like women.
guess you won't.

more for me I guess :huh:

:heart::heart::heart::heart:

the_icon_007

02-21-2008, 12:59 PM

How about "I don't care." All I care about is getting myself married to a decent guy right now. I don't care about anyone else's problems.

Amen sister.

I am awfully proud this community is involved in intelligent debate such as this.

I'm of the mind that we are always so focused on what someone else is doing that we lose sight of what it is that we're supposed to be doing. I once heard a senator say that gay marriage will erode our country's morals and values and won't make "real" marriage appealing to young people.

Oh how I wish he had addressed how over 60% of heterosexual marriage end in divorce. That has nothing to do with gays. That statistic has created a perennial bachelor out of myself.

Let them get married if they want. Let them pay taxes. And when they get married, let them get divorced like the heterosexuals do.

One final note from me (and thank you for letting my opinion be heard), the arguments from the pundits out there against gay marriage absolutely mirror the arguments made from interracial marriage in the 60's. It's an argument based in fear, not fact.

Sandman138

02-21-2008, 02:19 PM

Well if you read US history, this country was founded by people seeking religous freedom. The laws we put into place were and are based on the laws that are in the bible. The bible whether you believe in God or not teaches us right from wrong, and teaches morals. The laws put forth by God in the bible are still used today in this and most countries.

No, the people that you are talking about are the puritans who founded places like Jamestown, who exiled Mary Hutchinson for daring to form a Bible Study group for the women in her community. These puritans were also the wackjobs that, in 1692, hung eighteen inoccent women and crushed a man to death over hysteria of witchcraft.

The people who founded our Government were mostly Deists. Franklin, for example, was a Freemason, Adams was a Unitarian, and the guy who you quote in your signature was the poster child for Separation of Church and State. While he may have used God as his authority in the Decleration of Independence, that had much more to do with making an impact on British Parliament than it did with any spiritual link to democracy.

No, the people who founded our Government were influenced by political philosophers, free thinkers, and radicals. Now I haven't read all of the Federalist Papers, but of the ones I have, I find little to no mention of God. Instead, they are concerned with property rights, mediating power between the government and the individual, and how to separate the government so that ambition might mediate ambition.

Yes there are some F'ed up laws in some other countries, and there are some here too. (partial birth abortion for one is just wrong) But the fact remains that our laws in this country were based on the bible, and still are. We have separated church from state but faith and state still walk hand in hand.

Here, I bought you a present (http://www.catostore.org/index.asp?fa=ProductDetails&method=cats&scid=37&pid=144278-A) . It's to go along with your pocket Bible.

Now while there are a few churches that are supporting gay marriage mine isn't one of them. Most are doing from a stand point of wanting more members to join their church and not from a true supportive nature.

That's quite the assumption. Considering how little you know about history, I'm gonna go ahead and say you know **** all about current events.

Now if you believe in the bible as it is writen then you believe being gay is a sin, it says so in many parts of the bible. Now while I don't hate anyone and I have a few gay friends that doesn't mean I have to agree with what they do in their personal life.

And I'm sure your token friends are very comfortable in whatever closet you lock them in when you aren't parading them around on a leash and rhinestone collar for just these occasions. But seriously, us queers aren't asking for your acceptance. In fact, I don't want it. It makes me feel dirty. All I want is for you to leave me the hell alone and let me raise my own family the way I see fit when/if that day comes. You know what that's called? The ****ing American way!

Now on to what else I have said. Ok fine lest say we make same sex marriage legal. Who is to sat that someone isn't going to want to marry their dog, or a tree or maybe their car. Now while these people are crazy for wanting to do that who are we to judge them? they feel strongly about it so they should be aloud to do it.

It wouldn't happen because that is an obvious tax evasion.

How about making it legal to sell drugs? After all it isn't the drug dealers fault that his buyers are adicted. So that should be ok to do even if someone ODs.

Oh boy. You are so woefully misinformed on the legal history of narcotics in America that it is not even worth trying. I'll just say three things.

1. We banned liquor, which more or less gave birth to American organized crime, when we made it legal to sell liquor again, the world did not end.

2. There are DEA agents and members of law enforcement (http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php) who believe that our current ban on narcotics is no different than our ban on alcohol and is only benefiting the cartels while turning harmless users into felons.

3. If you think your local pharmacist is anything other than a Government licensed pusher, you are an idiot.

Oh lets get back to marriage, why not make it legal to have as many wives or husbands as you want at the same time. I mean do you love your 20th wife any less then your first? I don't think so.

I know many polygamists and polyamorists who have nothing but love shared between every party. However, they, like the person who wants to marry his car, come up against tax codes and laws that are much harder to rework than simply allowing two people of any gender to marry.

Oh and lest let borthers and sisters marry too, I mean how else are we going to make sure our blood line stays pure?

You know, your own Bible is full of this one. Hell, I'm pretty sure its approved of the practice on one occasion or another. I'll have to go back and re-read that, or maybe just ask Wil.

All I am saying is to change this law you have to change what is morally right and wrong. and no one in the government ( even with church and state being separate) is going to stand up to the bible.

And all I'm saying is your civics teacher should be fired... out of a cannon.

jaguarr

02-21-2008, 02:24 PM

we agree on a lot more than you think.
plus, you're a lot younger than me, I was pretty far right at one point in my life and have since mellowed.

you'd be surprised at my answeres to some of the questions being posed here 15 years ago.

You used to be a Fair Tax zealot in your youth? :huh:

:p

jag

SuBe

02-21-2008, 02:25 PM

You used to be a Fair Tax zealot in your youth? :huh:

:p

jag
One Word: FairTax, not Fair Tax. :cwink:

jaguarr

02-21-2008, 02:28 PM

One Word: FairTax, not Fair Tax. :cwink:

Okay, Captain OCD. :p

jag

SuBe

02-21-2008, 02:29 PM

Okay, Captain OCD. :p

jag
:up:

Mister Sinister

02-21-2008, 02:59 PM

I look at it as what is best for society as a whole. This is not normal. And no one has still answered my question. why are we trying to make the abmormal normal. What would happen if everyone was homosexual?

Where the f*** do you get off declaring what's normal and not normal? At the end of the day you're one guy in front of a computer on a popular movie-based forum, that doesn't make your opinion any less valid than mine or anyone else on this forum. To a LOT of people, homosexuality is normal.

Mr Sparkle

02-21-2008, 03:09 PM

You used to be a Fair Tax zealot in your youth? :huh:

:p

jag

I was oddly right-wing in my early teens.:o

SuBe

02-21-2008, 03:28 PM

I was oddly right-wing in my early teens.:o
That is odd, but I'm not in my early teens :huh:.

We should have a discussion some time.

The Chairman

02-21-2008, 03:33 PM

The Senator

02-21-2008, 05:23 PM

How's that?

You implied that the so-called "tolerance" curriculum, which would tell kids that it's wrong to assault or mock someone because of their sexuality, would make kids want to explore homosexuality. You said that I held a double standard, because apparently not wanting to get the **** kicked out of me and wanting the ability to marry my boyfriend is somehow a double standard. I implied that the world would never conform to your standards or my standards, and felt that civil unions would be middle ground. But instead of giving a simple "I disagree with it" speech, you gave a "civil unions and tolerance will encourage kids to turn gay" spiel complete with the typical "you have a double standard, don't you?" finger-pointing you love to dish out.

So yeah, you defecated on my original points :up:

jaguarr

02-21-2008, 05:24 PM

All you mixed-fabric wearers are goin' ta H E L L!!!!!! :o

jag

spike spiegel

02-21-2008, 08:48 PM

Homosexuality is only condemned in the Old Testament

It's also depicted as something that's a sin in the New Testament, in Romans and 1 Corinthians, and I think also in 1 Timothy.

The Chairman

02-21-2008, 09:20 PM

It's also depicted as something that's a sin in the New Testament, in Romans and 1 Corinthians, and I think also in 1 Timothy.

I just looked through the part in Corinthians where He discusses sexual immorality. The term "homosexual" is not used once. Also, Paul's writings often contradicted Christ, from my understanding. Christ never uses the term once in any of the Gospels.

Matt Murdock

02-21-2008, 10:17 PM

bullets

02-21-2008, 10:32 PM

I think marriage shoul dbe a ceremony for two people to celebrate their love. not the way it is now, it' s like a state mandate or something.

spike spiegel

02-21-2008, 11:17 PM

I just looked through the part in Corinthians where He discusses sexual immorality. The term "homosexual" is not used once. Also, Paul's writings often contradicted Christ, from my understanding. Christ never uses the term once in any of the Gospels.

I think some of the stuff Paul says is a bit iffy to me too...that's where I distinguish between something I like to call "Paul-inspired" rather than God-inspired Scripture. But sometimes he makes that distinction himself in Romans, I think.

It's in 1 Corinthians 6:9. I don't know, my own belief is just that homosexual behavior is wrong, from reading these verses. Also in the first chapter of Romans he brings it up. I can't help but think of the idea of marraige and believe that union between a man and a woman is the only union that could be right in God's eyes.

Otherwise, if I were not a Christian and did not hold those kinds of beliefs, I would be all for it. I just see a higher authority above me. But that's just my own opinion, and I honestly haven't ever tried to force it upon anyone else. I'm not going up in arms against same sex marriages. I'm only admitting that I don't agree with them.

Mr Sparkle

02-22-2008, 02:06 AM

It's in 1 Corinthians 6:9. I don't know, my own belief is just that homosexual behavior is wrong, from reading these verses. Also in the first chapter of Romans he brings it up. I can't help but think of the idea of marraige and believe that union between a man and a woman is the only union that could be right in God's eyes.

why is it wrong? why do you think that the only union that God would accept would be between a man and a woman?
and please, don't answer " because the bible...." tell me why YOU think it's wrong.

SurfDUI

02-22-2008, 02:13 AM

Anybody who comes down the idea, Surfer can only assume that like I, I REALLY don't believe or accept alot of the behavior of straight people either, i.e. an embarassingly high divorce rate and the exuberant # of people poppin out kids like Jiffy pop, with no way to support them. The constant news reports of people beating, torturing, and killing there own offspring. You can't keep the population if you got two outies-unless a surogate nation is what you want.

SurfDUI

02-22-2008, 02:18 AM

Homosexuality is only condemned in the Old Testament, the same chapter in which eating shellfish and wearing mixed fabrics are both condemned.

The 10 Commandments are Old Testament also, so by that logic, we should pick and choose what society dictates as sensitve. Kill your fellow man and bang your nieighbors wife right:whatever: .

WAIT, that's already what folks do-

I'm sure most Christians (including Memphis Slim) eat shellfish, so I think they can accept homosexuality.

WRONG-Black folks arn't big fans of shellfish as a whole I don't think. Least not this one. That's what the newsletter said.

HUMAN

02-22-2008, 04:43 AM

I think it's wrong morally, biologically, and religiously.

Do I care if people engage in such acts or marry? No, not really.

It's not me standing before the White Throne of Judgment for those acts.

Nightmare

02-22-2008, 05:21 AM

I think it's wrong morally, biologically, and religiously.

Do I care if people engage in such acts or marry? No, not really.

It's not me standing before the White Throne of Judgment for those acts.

Pretty much, if two guys are married. Its not really any of my business. And its its wrong religiously? who am i to judge someone and tell them they are doing wrong. It should be a private matter between one person and someone they love.

Memphis Slim

02-22-2008, 05:54 AM

Where the f*** do you get off declaring what's normal and not normal? At the end of the day you're one guy in front of a computer on a popular movie-based forum, that doesn't make your opinion any less valid than mine or anyone else on this forum. To a LOT of people, homosexuality is normal.

And to lot of people think sex with a sister or brother is normal. To some people more than one spouse is normal.

Nothing like smell of profane rants in the morning! :yay: Dude.....you know it's not normal. Science knows it's not normal. If it was, it could stand alone. It can't. Again...mankind does not benefit from such unions. If everyone was homosexual, we would die out.

02-22-2008, 06:13 AM

I have a hard time believing that if everyone was homosexual and certain people wanted kids.. they wouldn't be able to have any. :huh:

But the fact is everyone is not homosexual and never will be. So that argument, as far as I am concerned, is completely pointless.

Memphis Slim

02-22-2008, 06:13 AM

I have no problem with gay marriage. And I'm Christian. Homosexuality is only condemned in the Old Testament, the same chapter in which eating shellfish and wearing mixed fabrics are both condemned. I'm sure most Christians (including Memphis Slim) eat shellfish, so I think they can accept homosexuality.

Shows that a "little" Bible knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Did you know that the Mosaic Law had civil and ceremonial parts and hen it had the "moral" parts?

Because the civil and ceremonial laws were fulfilled in Christ a New Covenant was made (New Testament). The moral laws (10 Commandments ) still stand. We can eat what we want (1 Timothy 4).

Homosexual behavior is still condemned. That has not changed.

Jerry!

02-22-2008, 06:17 AM

And to lot of people think sex with a sister or brother is normal. To some people more than one spouse is normal.

Nothing like smell of profane rants in the morning! :yay: Dude.....you know it's not normal. Science knows it's not normal. If it was, it could stand alone. It can't. Again...mankind does not benefit from such unions. If everyone was homosexual, we would die out.

Aside from your impossible situation where everyone is gay and the population dies out, what the hell is the danger if two guys get married? Seriously, what is it, I don't get it. How does this affect me any more than a man and a woman getting married?

Bill

02-22-2008, 06:56 AM

And to lot of people think sex with a sister or brother is normal. To some people more than one spouse is normal.

Nothing like smell of profane rants in the morning! :yay: Dude.....you know it's not normal. Science knows it's not normal. If it was, it could stand alone. It can't. Again...mankind does not benefit from such unions. If everyone was homosexual, we would die out.

But everyone isn't homosexual. And mankind's fate doesn't hinge on homosexuals being able to wed or have sex. It never has and it never will.

Nothing like the smell of inane rants in the morning. It goes to show that a "little" common sense is a dangerous thing.

bell110

02-22-2008, 10:02 AM

The way I see it, and I know this is an incredibly strange perspective, marriage is simply an extension of the concept of love, which stems from an emotional sentiment that grew into an integral part of a physical necessity, namely sex and procreation. Therefore, I feel from a personal standpoint that same sex marriage shouldn't be allowed because the entire purpose of marriage is to, in the end, conceive children who will grow up and mature in a healthy environment. This doesn't mean that infertile people, or others in mitigating circumstances, should not be permitted to marry either, as there are ways to put a child into that loving and desperate home.

That said, using that same logic, from a simple legal standpoint, the government has no place to tell people what they can and cannot do in terms of marriage and social relations between two individuals. As long as neither party is harmed, the Government should keep out of the way. The current administration's involvement is, blatantly, nothing more than a direct invasion of church policy on state and federal law, which in and of itself is prohibited.

Simply put:

Morally? No, for biological reasons.
Legally? Yes, because the government has no right to deny such a liberty.

And there are ways to put a child in a loving, same-sex couple's home. You kind of canceled out your own arguement there.

And to lot of people think sex with a sister or brother is normal. To some people more than one spouse is normal.

Nothing like smell of profane rants in the morning! :yay: Dude.....you know it's not normal. Science knows it's not normal. If it was, it could stand alone. It can't. Again...mankind does not benefit from such unions. If everyone was homosexual, we would die out.

No, homosexuals still have working sexual organs. I don't get the logic behind that arguement. Just because someone is attracted to, and rather be with, someone of their own sex, doesn't mean that their sperm can't fertilize an egg.

The Chairman

02-22-2008, 10:20 AM

Mr Sparkle

02-22-2008, 10:48 AM

And to lot of people think sex with a sister or brother is normal. To some people more than one spouse is normal.

sex with a sister and brother is regarded as normal in the Bible, the book you seem to base your beliefs on.
the old testament, which speaks out against homosexuality is filled with incest.
so, apparently incest is "normal" to you, or at least it should be.
also, the spouse thing? I in particular have no problems with it.
like I have said, consenting adults should be able to lead their lives in the way they choose as long as their decisions don't adversely affect another.

Nothing like smell of profane rants in the morning! :yay: Dude.....you know it's not normal. Science knows it's not normal. If it was, it could stand alone. It can't. Again...mankind does not benefit from such unions. If everyone was homosexual, we would die out.

no "dude" YOU think it's not normal.
what's this "if it was it would stand alone" bunk? what does that even mean? "mankind doesn't benefit"? ha! such simplistic approach to things, I guess you oppose people who can't conceive marrying right?
since their union doesn't " benefit mankind" ( yeah, that's what MORE people are at this point a " benefit") but hey, let's follow your line of reasoning.
these people aren't going to procreate anyway, so your point is moot.
you'd do well to explain to us what the " if everyone was homosexual..." part of your argument means.
because...dude, not everyone is Homosexual, so you have no point, if everyone was a woman, we would die out, if everyone was a man we would die out.
does that make men and women " abnormal" ?
of course not.
:whatever: you poor thing, you poor stupid thing.

Mr Sparkle

02-22-2008, 10:57 AM

Shows that a "little" Bible knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Did you know that the Mosaic Law had civil and ceremonial parts and hen it had the "moral" parts?

Because the civil and ceremonial laws were fulfilled in Christ a New Covenant was made (New Testament). The moral laws (10 Commandments ) still stand. We can eat what we want (1 Timothy 4).

Homosexual behavior is still condemned. That has not changed.

shows how convenient interpretation of the bible is a " dangerous" thing.

" verily I say unto you. Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all is fulfilled."

of course, most Christians cling to the notion that Christ ( rather conveniently) " fulfilled " the law and that's why they are good Christians even though they don't observe the Mosaic law.

but they are not.
infact there is a big debate going on within the church today on whether or not the Mosaic law still applies.
so, what do lazy people do? simple they WANT to be bigots, but they also have a hankering for shellfish, so......simple, they DECIDE what the bible means, and that this meaning is good, because it doesn't condemn their own sins on a daily basis.

see?

oh, Celldog, you misguided soul you, I know you mean well, but you're kinda filled with hate, should get that looked at.
it's kinda " superboy-prime" sad, because you really THINK you're righteous.
but c'mon, I answered your posts a while back, and since you know you have no defense for them you ignore them?

seriously? how's that being Honest with yourself?

spike spiegel

02-22-2008, 01:06 PM

why is it wrong? why do you think that the only union that God would accept would be between a man and a woman?
and please, don't answer " because the bible...." tell me why YOU think it's wrong.

Because the Bible - oops.

Because in Genesis - oops.

Because it's what I believe in, it's what I see Scripture saying to me. I see Scripture as a way of life.

sex with a sister and brother is regarded as normal in the Bible, the book you seem to base your beliefs on.
the old testament, which speaks out against homosexuality is filled with incest.

True, but where is it justified/blessed by God? It is condemned by God in Leviticus 18:6-18.

danoyse

02-22-2008, 01:08 PM

Yes. They're entitled to the same rights as everyone else.

Any argument to the contrary is arrogant, paranoid, ignorant and stupid.

muertevilla

02-22-2008, 01:09 PM

so, you're a top?:huh:

sorry to disappoint :oldrazz:

Matt Murdock

02-22-2008, 01:17 PM

And there are ways to put a child in a loving, same-sex couple's home. You kind of canceled out your own arguement there.

I wasn't making an argument; simply stating my opinion.

Mr Sparkle

02-22-2008, 01:55 PM

Because the Bible - oops.

Because in Genesis - oops.

Because it's what I believe in, it's what I see Scripture saying to me. I see Scripture as a way of life.

yes, but I asked why YOU thought it was wrong.
I know killing is wrong is why.
I know stealing is wrong and why.
do you know why homosexuality is wrong and why?

True, but where is it justified/blessed by God? It is condemned by God in Leviticus 18:6-18.

well according to you God wrote the bible, and Lot is mentioned as " just and righteous" and all it takes is a little liquor for him to do both his daughters.

so...um...yeah.

spike spiegel

02-22-2008, 02:02 PM

well according to you God wrote the bible, and Lot is mentioned as " just and righteous" and all it takes is a little liquor for him to do both his daughters.

so...um...yeah.

I don't believe God wrote the Bible.

Mr Sparkle

02-22-2008, 02:05 PM

I don't believe God wrote the Bible.

then why follow it?
:huh:

anyway, answer the question Claire.....why is Homosexuality wrong?

Carcharodon

02-22-2008, 02:18 PM

Dude.....you know it's not normal. Science knows it's not normal.Love how you put your trust in science when it's convenient for you or your argument, but when science disagrees with your faith or ideas, it's bat**** crazy and a liberal anti-Christian agenda.

Hypocrisy FTW!

Mr Sparkle

02-22-2008, 02:28 PM

hypocrisy for Celldog is normal.
science knows this.

spike spiegel

02-22-2008, 02:28 PM

then why follow it?
:huh:

Well, rather than believing that it's dictated by God, I believe that it's inspired by God, which basically means that everything that is in the Bible is true and real. If I'm not mistaken, most Muslims believe that the Koran is dictated. But most Christians simply believe that their Bible is inspired. It's a holy book, and also a book written by humans. It's God-breathed, through human hands. It is divine and human simultaneously.

My belief is that: there are certain books in the Bible that are historical, like Genesis, Kings, Chronicles, Exodus, etc...but then there are also parts of Scripture that I see as instruction, like the 10 Commandments, and Paul's letters, etc. So some of Scripture is history, in the case of Lot and Cain and their incestous relations (well, the Cain one is assumed), and then there's the instruction, where God condemns incest, in Leviticus.

Carcharodon

02-22-2008, 02:38 PM

My belief is that: there are certain books in the Bible that are historical, like Genesis...*Starts to say something, then realizes that trying to convince somebody that the earth wasn't created in 7 days is useless if they already believe it, and walks away.*

BlackLantern

02-22-2008, 02:51 PM

There is no logical reason why 2 consenting adults who love each other should not be allowed to marry

Mr Sparkle

02-22-2008, 03:05 PM

Well, rather than believing that it's dictated by God, I believe that it's inspired by God, which basically means that everything that is in the Bible is true and real. If I'm not mistaken, most Muslims believe that the Koran is dictated. But most Christians simply believe that their Bible is inspired. It's a holy book, and also a book written by humans. It's God-breathed, through human hands. It is divine and human simultaneously.

My belief is that: there are certain books in the Bible that are historical, like Genesis, Kings, Chronicles, Exodus, etc...but then there are also parts of Scripture that I see as instruction, like the 10 Commandments, and Paul's letters, etc. So some of Scripture is history, in the case of Lot and Cain and their incestous relations (well, the Cain one is assumed), and then there's the instruction, where God condemns incest, in Leviticus.

then it was God who called Lot a just and righteous man.
:cwink:

but why are you so afraid of answering the question?

why?

spike spiegel

02-22-2008, 03:13 PM

then it was God who called Lot a just and righteous man.
:cwink:

but why are you so afraid of answering the question?

why?

Lot's daughters took advantage of him when he was drunk.

I don't think calling someone a righteous man is the same as calling them perfect. Everyone who God had chosen in the Bible had their own flaws and their own sins, all the way from Abraham to Noah to Moses to David and Solomon.

I already answered the question before.

Jerry!

02-22-2008, 03:14 PM

What the ****..

I don't read the bible , but what the hell kind of story is that?

Mr Sparkle

02-22-2008, 03:18 PM

Lot's daughters took advantage of him when he was drunk.

I don't think calling someone a righteous man is the same as calling them perfect. Everyone who God had chosen in the Bible had their own flaws and their own sins, all the way from Abraham to Noah to Moses to David and Solomon.

weak dodge, very weak.
but I don't care, this isn't about the bible.
this is about why YOU think Homosexuality is wrong.

answer the question Spike.
why aren't you answering it?

spike spiegel

02-22-2008, 03:21 PM

weak dodge, very weak.
but I don't care, this isn't about the bible.
this is about why YOU think Homosexuality is wrong.

answer the question Spike.
why aren't you answering it?

I already answered it, and my answer comes from what I believe in, which is the Bible.

Captain_BluTac

02-22-2008, 03:25 PM

I am really surprised this thread hasn't been closed, most like this are. :o

Mr Sparkle

02-22-2008, 03:26 PM

I already answered it, and my answer comes from what I believe in, which is the Bible.

no, you didn't, you know it.
I'm asking why YOU think it's wrong.
if you can't answer it, just say that, and say " I don't know WHY I just follow what the bible says without question" and we will be done with it.

spike spiegel

02-22-2008, 03:28 PM

no, you didn't, you know it.
I'm asking why YOU think it's wrong.
if you can't answer it, just say that, and say " I don't know WHY I just follow what the bible says without question" and we will be done with it.

That's basically how I answered it a little while ago.

SuBe

02-22-2008, 03:34 PM

I already answered it, and my answer comes from what I believe in, which is the Bible.
So why should our government be set up for what you believe when what you believe is biased against these people's freedoms? The Government is not a Theocracy. This is a country based on Liberties, and excluding liberties isn't what the Founders intended, no matter how much that disagrees with the Bible.

spike spiegel

02-22-2008, 03:36 PM

So why should our government be set up for what you believe when what you believe is biased against these people's freedoms? The Government is not a Theocracy. This is a country based on Liberties, and excluding liberties isn't what the Founders intended, no matter how much that disagrees with the Bible.

I didn't say it should be set up for what I believe.

I said I didn't agree with homosexuality or same sex marriage. And the reason being, because from reading Scripture, I believe it's wrong. So I can't say that I think it's "OK" or "fine" for gays to marry - that goes against my belief. That's why I voted "no", and if this country had a vote on it, I would vote "no", but I'm not going to say that I want the government to be a theocracy. My religion comes in behind my reason for believing that homosexuality is wrong, and nothing more than that. That's my reason; the government doesn't have to share my beliefs behind it.

Jerry!

02-22-2008, 03:41 PM

Still not one person who says that can come up with legitimate reasons as to why.

Captain_BluTac

02-22-2008, 03:44 PM

I dunno Jerry!, acouple of pages back there was quite a good reason

Because it's icky.

BlackLantern

02-22-2008, 03:53 PM

Still not one person who says that can come up with legitimate reasons as to why.

Legitimate, logical, or at least common sense based. I think we will be waiting a long time.

q_ball76207

02-22-2008, 03:56 PM

Winter Spleen

02-22-2008, 03:58 PM

It's just bull****. There is no reason gays should not be allowed to married.

Captain_BluTac

02-22-2008, 03:59 PM

Well Jerry first of all mariage is a christian institution so what you are saying is it is ok to disragard the bible as far as the whole being gay thing is a sin in itself and embrace the mariage part to me that makes no sence either you are a christian or not you can't have it both ways

Actually marriage, or partnership ceremonies are common in almost every culture from Hindu weddings to Wiccan handfastings and also in the eyes of the government it is a lawful institution not a religious one, plus most countries have a different more accurate name , for "gay marriage" for instance civil partnerships.

BlackLantern

02-22-2008, 03:59 PM

Well Jerry first of all mariage is a christian institution so what you are saying is it is ok to disragard the bible as far as the whole being gay thing is a sin in itself and embrace the mariage part to me that makes no sence either you are a christian or not you can't have it both ways

Marriage is NOT a Christian institution, every civilization has had a form of marriage. The Bible, which IMO was basically written by people to keep the masses in line with the fear of God, has stories of men selling their daughters into arranged marriages. So how is that OK but 2 people who love each other, regardless of gender, is not OK??

Carcharodon

02-22-2008, 03:59 PM

Legitimate, logical, or at least common sense based. I think we will be waiting a long time.Well, some have brought up the argument that the shift of the legal definition of marriage could cause problems. They say that it will spark a continuous mutation of the definition until it includes marriage to animals, or multiple spouses.

The union between two consenting adults, however, is far different than between a man or woman and an animal, or a man and multiple people. Still, that's about the most logical argument I've heard thus far....even if it doesn't hold any water whatsoever and is a thinly-veiled attempt at yet again inserting the Bible into our system of government. :dry:

BlackLantern

02-22-2008, 04:04 PM

Ive heard the "variation" argument as well. I personally believe marriage should be clearly defined as a union between TWO consenting adults...and by adults I mean 18....none of that emancipated crap

q_ball76207

02-22-2008, 04:05 PM

BlackLantern

02-22-2008, 04:10 PM

It is considered taboo or a sin by those in the religious community out of misunderstanding, prejudice, and fear. It is something that challenges the "norm". To me, a sin is something that has an adverse or harmful consequence. Homosexuality or Heterosexuality isn't a detriment or harmful to anyone

Carcharodon

02-22-2008, 04:11 PM

excuse me i shoalda said religous institution the fact still remains gay or lesbians it is still a taboo in this society i dont know any religins that imbrace it much less tollerate it so please site me some actual reasons why it is not a sinGluttony is a sin as well. It's causing huge health issues, and consequently, economic issues as well.

Let's outlaw gluttony. :up:

Damien Rage

02-22-2008, 04:11 PM

Well, some have brought up the argument that the shift of the legal definition of marriage could cause problems. They say that it will spark a continuous mutation of the definition until it includes marriage to animals, or multiple spouses.

That is because peolpe are idiotic. lol. I don't care what the ef it's called.
And ef religions too. I think all religions are cults...

BlackLantern

02-22-2008, 04:13 PM

Gluttony is a sin as well. It's causing huge health issues, and consequently, economic issues as well.

Let's outlaw gluttony. :up:

If I want to eat 12 deep-fried Twinkies, I will do so. Let the government try and stop me

Ol'Canucklehead

02-22-2008, 04:14 PM

I say yes. Doesn't bother me at all. Half of my friends are gay.

Damien Rage

02-22-2008, 04:16 PM

Gluttony is a sin as well. It's causing huge health issues, and consequently, economic issues as well.

Let's outlaw gluttony. :up:

um...can we outlaw stupidity first? :woot:

Captain_BluTac

02-22-2008, 04:18 PM

I think the title "Same Sex Marriages" is doing this thread no favours as people are using that as a basis for this being a religious discussion, this is not a religious issue as ever church has made there stance on this issue clear, this is merely about a lawful union between to people because I think it's safe to say if a same sex couple want to be together openly without guilt, they do not want a religious wedding.

Carcharodon

02-22-2008, 04:18 PM

um...can we outlaw stupidity first? :woot:Our prison systems aren't big enough, and there aren't enough lethal injection needles. :csad:

BlackLantern

02-22-2008, 04:20 PM

Damien Rage

02-22-2008, 04:23 PM

Our prison systems aren't big enough, and there aren't enough lethal injection needles. :csad:

dammit

...people are using that as a basis for this being a religious discussion...

again a say...ef religion

Mr Sparkle

02-22-2008, 04:33 PM

I believe it's wrong.

no, that's the thing YOU don't believe it's wring, because you can't say WHY, you have told it's wrong and you're simply complying with what others tell you to believe.

big dif.

SuBe

02-22-2008, 05:51 PM

no, that's the thing YOU don't believe it's wrong, because you can't say WHY, you have told it's wrong and you're simply complying with what others tell you to believe.

big dif.
fixed:cwink:

I agree. There is nothing wrong with Same Sex Marriage. Believe me, once you are married, you'll have the Same Sex all the time, none.

Ba-Ding!

But, anyway, Governments shouldn't play favorites.

SurfDUI

02-23-2008, 02:40 AM

MaskedManJRK

02-23-2008, 03:04 AM

excuse me i shoalda said religous institution the fact still remains gay or lesbians it is still a taboo in this society i dont know any religins that imbrace it much less tollerate it so please site me some actual reasons why it is not a sin

If I remember correctly, the Lutheren Church is gay-friendly. There are two others, but they slip my mind at this moment--I know someone, probably jmspice, posted them in another gay marriage-related thread.

Captain_BluTac

02-23-2008, 04:45 AM

The definition of marriage-regarless of convention, and origin of country is betweenst a man and a woman-not adults or cats or anything else. By common defintion, by whatever. That is what people have governed by since the jump.

IF Adam and Steve want to get hitched, HEY call it something else. If were taking the Creator's stand about it out, then find another word for same-sex unions and keep it movin. Call it Return of the Jedi for alls I care, and I don't. I jus feel you can't call it a marriage.

May I point you in the direction of this similar, but less aggressive post.

I think the title "Same Sex Marriages" is doing this thread no favours as people are using that as a basis for this being a religious discussion, this is not a religious issue as ever church has made there stance on this issue clear, this is merely about a lawful union between to people because I think it's safe to say if a same sex couple want to be together openly without guilt, they do not want a religious wedding.

Memphis Slim

02-23-2008, 05:49 AM

The 10 Commandments does not include homosexuality, Slim.

The 10 commandments were the skeleton..not the details. Adultery (the 7th commandment) was a sexual sin......other sexual sins fell under that. Leviticus 18:

Forbidden Sexual Practices

1 Then the Lord said to Moses,

2 “Give the following instructions to the people of Israel. I am the Lord your God.

3 So do not act like the people in Egypt, where you used to live, or like the people of Canaan, where I am taking you. You must not imitate their way of life.

4 You must obey all my regulations and be careful to obey my decrees, for I am the Lord your God.
5 If you obey my decrees and my regulations, you will find life through them. I am the Lord.

6 “You must never have sexual relations with a close relative, for I am the Lord.
7 “Do not violate your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; you must not have sexual relations with her.
8 “Do not have sexual relations with any of your father’s wives, for this would violate your father.
9 “Do not have sexual relations with your sister or half sister, whether she is your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born into your household or someone else’s.
10 “Do not have sexual relations with your granddaughter, whether she is your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter, for this would violate yourself.
11 “Do not have sexual relations with your stepsister, the daughter of any of your father’s wives, for she is your sister.
12 “Do not have sexual relations with your father’s sister, for she is your father’s close relative.
13 “Do not have sexual relations with your mother’s sister, for she is your mother’s close relative.
14 “Do not violate your uncle, your father’s brother, by having sexual relations with his wife, for she is your aunt.
15 “Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law; she is your son’s wife, so you must not have sexual relations with her.
16 “Do not have sexual relations with your brother’s wife, for this would violate your brother.
17 “Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. And do not take her granddaughter, whether her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter, and have sexual relations with her. They are close relatives, and this would be a wicked act.
18 “While your wife is living, do not marry her sister and have sexual relations with her, for they would be rivals.
19 “Do not have sexual relations with a woman during her period of menstrual impurity.
20 “Do not defile yourself by having sexual intercourse with your neighbor’s wife.
21 “Do not permit any of your children to be offered as a sacrifice to Molech, for you must not bring shame on the name of your God. I am the Lord.
22 “Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin.
23 “A man must not defile himself by having sex with an animal. And a woman must not offer herself to a male animal to have intercourse with it. This is a perverse act.
24 “Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, for the people I am driving out before you have defiled themselves in all these ways.

25 Because the entire land has become defiled, I am punishing the people who live there. I will cause the land to vomit them out.

26 You must obey all my decrees and regulations. You must not commit any of these detestable sins. This applies both to native-born Israelites and to the foreigners living among you. 27 “All these detestable activities are practiced by the people of the land where I am taking you, and this is how the land has become defiled.

28 So do not defile the land and give it a reason to vomit you out, as it will vomit out the people who live there now.

29 Whoever commits any of these detestable sins will be cut off from the community of Israel.

30 So obey my instructions, and do not defile yourselves by committing any of these detestable practices that were committed by the people who lived in the land before you. I am the Lord your God.”

Mr Sparkle

02-23-2008, 09:18 AM

I jus feel you can't call it a marriage.

hahaha.
you represent your demographic well.
such cogent arguments.

danoyse

02-23-2008, 09:35 AM

[FONT=Georgia]IF Adam and Steve want to get hitched, HEY call it something else. If were taking the Creator's stand about it out, then find another word for same-sex unions and keep it movin. Call it Return of the Jedi for alls I care, and I don't. I jus feel you can't call it a marriage.

That's idiotic. They deserve the same rights as anyone else.

Mr Sparkle

02-23-2008, 10:16 AM

22 “Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin.

more like
“Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is an abomination.”

and of course, leviticus also offers this little tidbit:

“If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood be upon them.”

so then, I guess Celldog is all for the killing of gays.
plus, Celldog actually gives us the context for the law in this part

"So do not act like the people in Egypt, where you used to live, or like the people of Canaan, where I am taking you. You must not imitate their way of life. "

which means that the law was made for the followers to not engage in the worship of Ishtar and some other deity ( I can't remember) that I believe they worshipped in canaan, I believe we have been asked by many a Christian to look at things " in context" since Canaan was a desert culture were offspring were kinda important, I doubt that homosexual relations actually existed.

also, anyone notice that the bible thinks that women have a period of menstrual "impurity"

yeeeech.

really progressive there fellas.
I do have to agree about sacrificing children to Molech.
that's bad **** right there.
however, the more observant among you will notice some things.

1.- no age restrictions WOOOOOOT!

http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e274/zpower240/jailbait.jpg

2.- 26 and 30 are kind of redundant so God went all Woody Allen all of a sudden.

3.- when you do your granddaughter this violates YOU and hence is bad.
not your granddaughter, but YOU

4.- Celldog is quoting leviticus.
please, look up " leviticus " It says all kinds of crazy ****, so then, if we are to follow leviticus in the sexual conduct we are to follow all else it says.
because...uh....we don't want to go " violate " ourselves do we? so then

"Ye do not eat with the blood; ye do not enchant, nor observe clouds."
is in leviticus 19:26 remember that time you saw the could that looked like a kitten? you were VIOLATING yourself...sinner, God will cast you out.
seriously though, observe clouds means as a way of "fortune telling" which is ironic, because leviticus speaks out against it but in Genesis, god places the sun, moon and stars in the sky so they can be used for signs :huh:

....the hell?

well, yeah, and no rare steaks kiddies, lest you violate...well, you get the picture.

seriously, I don't even need to cut and paste stuff like Celldog to illustrate how ridiculous Leviticus is.
because you see, if I say that leviticus ALSO offers advice on how to cut and kill sacrifices to God and how burning said sacrifices makes a " sweet savour unto the lord" (:woot:) Celldog would say " well that's the ceremonial part and I have been told that doesn't apply ( but it does) only the moral part applies"
well, that's good, because it says that when a person touches and unclean carcass he is also unclean and guilty ( that's not a ceremony is it, guilty implies....well, guilt) also, what not to eat.
eating is not ceremonial, offerings and sacrifices are ceremonial, eating is a part of how we conduct ourselves, a natural impulse ( like the sexual impulse ) related to survival.
so then, God expects us not to either eat or touch the carcass of the swine.
ate ham lately? see you in hell.
ate anything that lives in the sea ( no not in a pineapple) and has no fins?
like oh...say shrimp? lobster?
see you in hell.

see this fella?

http://img.metro.co.uk/i/pix/2007/04/fourlegduckPA_450x269.jpg

well, he is an abomination according to leviticus.
"All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you."
:huh: but this tells me that apparently a lot of four legged ducks went around town in biblical times.

my favorite?
are you one of those new ages hippies that considers childbirth miraculous?
well, get thee behind me satan! because GOD disagrees.

"Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean."

unclean.

awesome, God don't **** around, women after childbirth are unclean for a week and thus, should be set apart.

awesome.

again, this is NOT ceremonial, this has nothing to do with offerings, these are determinations about keeping your soul clean.
because if SEX is not ceremonial then also CHILDBIRTH is NOT ceremonial.
nor eating.
tough luck on celldog, he don't get to eat much ham and shrimp.
:csad:
also leviticus says that you're not to even LOOK at a woman that's menstruating.
don't even LOOK at her.
oh, some more awesomeness when it comes to sex, as I explained earlier, not only is the whole homosexuality thing frowned upon in the old testament.
but you're supposed to kill the people involved ( just so you know) and with bestiality?

you have to kill the guy or gal that did the deed.....
plus the animal :dry:

hahahahahahahahahaha! awesome book.

also, Celldog forgot to tell us what to do with people that do violate these laws.
it's almost always DEATH.
"lie with your father's wife" ? dead BOTH of you.
"lie with your daughter in law" ? DEAD BOTH of you.
" adultery"? DEAD both of you.

haha! neat.
not violent at all that book.

but hey, you're progressive, you're not going to follow some old book to the letter right?
I mean, you're the new kind of Christian that KNOWS that the bible is allegorical and that God surely meant something else?

well, THIS (http://www.thebricktestament.com//the_law/following_your_own_moral_compass/dt29_19.html) is your fate.

spike spiegel

02-23-2008, 01:16 PM

“If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood be upon them.”

so then, I guess Celldog is all for the killing of gays.

John 8:3-5
Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, they said to him, "Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses, in the law commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do you say?"

John 8:7
So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first."

also, what not to eat.
eating is not ceremonial, offerings and sacrifices are ceremonial, eating is a part of how we conduct ourselves, a natural impulse ( like the sexual impulse ) related to survival.
so then, God expects us not to either eat or touch the carcass of the swine.
ate ham lately? see you in hell.
ate anything that lives in the sea ( no not in a pineapple) and has no fins?
like oh...say shrimp? lobster?
see you in hell.

Mark 7:18-19
"Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")

Star

02-23-2008, 01:21 PM

Ok, I don't really know much about christianity but is that Brick Testament site faithful to the bible?? Because if it is... WOAH.

Is it a parody or something??

Mr Sparkle

02-23-2008, 01:33 PM

John 8:3-5
Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, they said to him, "Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses, in the law commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do you say?"

John 8:7
So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first."

Mark 7:18-19
"Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")

ahahahahahaha way to show the bible contradicting itself.
good job spike! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Mr Sparkle

02-23-2008, 01:34 PM

Ok, I don't really know much about christianity but is that Brick Testament site faithful to the bible?? Because if it is... WOAH.

Is it a parody or something??

completely.

spike spiegel

02-23-2008, 01:38 PM

ahahahahahaha way to show the bible contradicting itself.
good job spike! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

:cwink: I thought you might say that. :cwink:

Mr Sparkle

02-23-2008, 01:39 PM

:cwink: I thought you might say that. :cwink:

:o cuz it does :o

now quiet down or I'll ask you why homosexuality is wrong again, and you'll have to think.....for yourself!

scary.

Star

02-23-2008, 01:40 PM

completely.

wow.

spike spiegel

02-23-2008, 01:43 PM

:o cuz it does :o

I don't think so. I don't see it contradicting itself there. :yay:

I think it's something very different.

Memphis Slim

02-23-2008, 01:44 PM

more like
“Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is an abomination.”

and of course, leviticus also offers this little tidbit:

“If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood be upon them.”

so then, I guess Celldog is all for the killing of gays.
plus, Celldog actually gives us the context for the law in this part

"So do not act like the people in Egypt, where you used to live, or like the people of Canaan, where I am taking you. You must not imitate their way of life. "

which means that the law was made for the followers to not engage in the worship of Ishtar and some other deity ( I can't remember) that I believe they worshipped in canaan, I believe we have been asked by many a Christian to look at things " in context" since Canaan was a desert culture were offspring were kinda important, I doubt that homosexual relations actually existed.

also, anyone notice that the bible thinks that women have a period of menstrual "impurity"

yeeeech.

really progressive there fellas.
I do have to agree about sacrificing children to Molech.
that's bad **** right there.
however, the more observant among you will notice some things.

1.- no age restrictions WOOOOOOT!

http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e274/zpower240/jailbait.jpg

2.- 26 and 30 are kind of redundant so God went all Woody Allen all of a sudden.

3.- when you do your granddaughter this violates YOU and hence is bad.
not your granddaughter, but YOU

4.- Celldog is quoting leviticus.
please, look up " leviticus " It says all kinds of crazy ****, so then, if we are to follow leviticus in the sexual conduct we are to follow all else it says.
because...uh....we don't want to go " violate " ourselves do we? so then

"Ye do not eat with the blood; ye do not enchant, nor observe clouds."
is in leviticus 19:26 remember that time you saw the could that looked like a kitten? you were VIOLATING yourself...sinner, God will cast you out.
seriously though, observe clouds means as a way of "fortune telling" which is ironic, because leviticus speaks out against it but in Genesis, god places the sun, moon and stars in the sky so they can be used for signs :huh:

....the hell?

well, yeah, and no rare steaks kiddies, lest you violate...well, you get the picture.

seriously, I don't even need to cut and paste stuff like Celldog to illustrate how ridiculous Leviticus is.
because you see, if I say that leviticus ALSO offers advice on how to cut and kill sacrifices to God and how burning said sacrifices makes a " sweet savour unto the lord" (:woot:) Celldog would say " well that's the ceremonial part and I have been told that doesn't apply ( but it does) only the moral part applies"
well, that's good, because it says that when a person touches and unclean carcass he is also unclean and guilty ( that's not a ceremony is it, guilty implies....well, guilt) also, what not to eat.
eating is not ceremonial, offerings and sacrifices are ceremonial, eating is a part of how we conduct ourselves, a natural impulse ( like the sexual impulse ) related to survival.
so then, God expects us not to either eat or touch the carcass of the swine.
ate ham lately? see you in hell.
ate anything that lives in the sea ( no not in a pineapple) and has no fins?
like oh...say shrimp? lobster?
see you in hell.

see this fella?

http://img.metro.co.uk/i/pix/2007/04/fourlegduckPA_450x269.jpg

well, he is an abomination according to leviticus.
"All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you."
:huh: but this tells me that apparently a lot of four legged ducks went around town in biblical times.

my favorite?
are you one of those new ages hippies that considers childbirth miraculous?
well, get thee behind me satan! because GOD disagrees.

"Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean."

unclean.

awesome, God don't **** around, women after childbirth are unclean for a week and thus, should be set apart.

awesome.

again, this is NOT ceremonial, this has nothing to do with offerings, these are determinations about keeping your soul clean.
because if SEX is not ceremonial then also CHILDBIRTH is NOT ceremonial.
nor eating.
tough luck on celldog, he don't get to eat much ham and shrimp.
:csad:
also leviticus says that you're not to even LOOK at a woman that's menstruating.
don't even LOOK at her.
oh, some more awesomeness when it comes to sex, as I explained earlier, not only is the whole homosexuality thing frowned upon in the old testament.
but you're supposed to kill the people involved ( just so you know) and with bestiality?

you have to kill the guy or gal that did the deed.....
plus the animal :dry:

hahahahahahahahahaha! awesome book.

also, Celldog forgot to tell us what to do with people that do violate these laws.
it's almost always DEATH.
"lie with your father's wife" ? dead BOTH of you.
"lie with your daughter in law" ? DEAD BOTH of you.
" adultery"? DEAD both of you.

haha! neat.
not violent at all that book.

but hey, you're progressive, you're not going to follow some old book to the letter right?
I mean, you're the new kind of Christian that KNOWS that the bible is allegorical and that God surely meant something else?

well, THIS (http://www.thebricktestament.com//the_law/following_your_own_moral_compass/dt29_19.html) is your fate.

We've been down this road ad nauseum, Sparkie. I'm not explaining it again. Even when I've explained it, you've still not changed your view. You keep going back to this same ol' tired shellfish, webbed feet......
Go here....this will explain eveything.

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=880

The Characteristics of the Mosaic Law(1) The foundation and basis of the Mosaic Law is the covenant God made with the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In several places in Exodus and Deuteronomy, there a references to the Abrahamic Covenant which establish the fact that the giving of the Law at Sinai was based on the covenant with Abraham and God’s continuing plan for the nation of Israel as a priesthood nation (cf. Ex. 19:4-6; Deut. 4:4-8 (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=880#) with Ex. 2:24-25; Deut. 4:36-38 (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=880#); 29:31; 1 Chron. 16:15-19 (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=880#)). God had promised to bless the descendants of Abraham and through them, the world. This was a promises reiterated and expanded to Abraham and to Isaac and Jacob. God would bless Israel and through them, bring blessing to the world (Gen. 12 (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=880#):1f; 15; 17:1ff; 26:24f; 28:13f). The Abrahamic covenant is a unilateral covenant. Its ultimate fulfillment is dependent on God’s sovereign and steadfast faithfulness to His promises to Abraham regardless of Israel’s continued disobedience (cf. Ezek. 20:1-44 (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=880#)).
The Mosaic Covenant, however, was a bilateral covenant. Though its ultimate fulfillment is dependent on God, for any generation to experience the blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant, there had to be faithfulness to God. Thus, enters the Law, a bilateral covenant given to Moses for the nation of Israel after their redemption out of the land of Egypt. It was through obedience to the Mosaic Covenant (the Law) that Israel would be able to experience the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant in the promised land. For obedience there would be blessings; for disobedience, cursing (cf. Deut. 28-30 (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=880#)).
(2) The Mosaic Law is holy, good, and spiritual (Rom. 7:12, 14 (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=880#)). It was, however, only temporary as the book of Hebrews so clearly teaches. As such, the Mosaic Law was designed to maintain a proper relationship between God and His people Israel (blessing versus cursing), but only until the coming of Messiah and the establishment of a New Covenant. The Law was never designed to be a permanent rule of life. It was merely a tutor or guardian to guide Israel in all areas of her life until Christ (2 Cor. 3:7, 11 (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=880#); Gal. 3:23-24 (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=880#); Rom. 10:4 (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=880#)).
(3) The Mosaic Law is weak because it is dependent on man’s ability. It is especially weak when adopted as a system of merit (Rom. 8:3 (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=880#)).
(4) The Mosaic Law was an indivisible unit, and is that which was terminated by the Lord Jesus. Though the Law is usually divided into three parts, as described above, it is important to see that it was an indivisible unit. Thus, when Paul stated that we are not under the Law, this included all three parts, including the Ten Commandments. Some will agree that parts of the Old Testament Law have been done away, but assert the Ten Commandments are supposedly still in force today. But all three parts of the Law were designed to function as a unit to guide Israel in all of its life. The Ten Commandments cannot be separated from the rest. Further, even though most recognize this three-fold division, the Jews so numbered all the commands that they approached the Law as a unit. Ryrie notes that,
“…the Jewish people either did not acknowledge it (the three-fold division) or at least did not insist on it. Rather they divided the 613 commandments of the Law into twelve families of commandments which were then subdivided into twelve additional families of positive and twelve additional families of negative commands.”10 (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=880#P99_22910)
Further, that it is a unit is evident by the fact that the recognition of any of its features, i.e., as a meritorious system of righteousness with God, obligates the person to fulfill the entire Law, as we are taught by both Paul and James (cf. Gal. 3:10, 12 (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=880#); 5:3; Jam. 2:8-11 (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=880#)).
Further evidence that the Law is a unit is the penalty of death for disobedience is attached to all three parts of the Law.
Noticing the penalties attached to certain commands further emphasizes the unitized character of the Law. When the command to keep the Sabbath (one of the “commandments”) was violated by a man who gathered sticks on that day, the penalty was death by stoning (Num. 15:32-36 (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=880#)). When the people of Israel violated the command concerning the Sabbatical Year for the land (one of the “judgments”), God sent them into captivity where many died (Jer. 25:11 (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=880#)). When Nadab and Abihu offered strange fire before the Lord (one of the “ordinances”), they immediately died (Lev. 10:1-7 (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=880#)). Clearly these commands from various parts of the Law were equally binding and the punishment equally severe. The Law was a unit.11 (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=880#P103_24100)
Finally, three times in 2 Corinthians 3:6-13 (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=880#) Paul declares that the Mosaic system is done away or abolished (vss. 7, 11, 13). In commenting on 2 Corinthians 3:7-13 (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=880#), Chafer wrote:
It is the law as crystallized in the ten commandments which is in view; for that law alone was ‘written and engraven in stones.’ In the midst of the strongest possible contrast between the reign of the teachings of the law and the teachings of grace, it is declared that these commandments were ‘done away’ and ‘abolished.’ It should be recognized that the old was abolished to make place for the new, which far excels in glory. The passing of the law is not, therefore, a loss; it is rather an inestimable gain.”12 (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=880#P106_24818)
(5) The Mosaic Law stands in contrast to the grace of God as now manifested in the coming of Christ (Rom. 6:14 (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=880#); 7:6; 8:3; Gal. 3:12 (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=880#)).
The Purpose and Function of the Mosaic Law

The Purpose and Function ExplainedWhat then is the purpose of the Law? Though given to Israel to govern her life in the promise land for blessing instead of cursing, there was an attendant purpose in the giving of the Mosaic Law to Israel—a purpose that still stands today. Simply put, its proper use is to show man his total helpless and hopeless condition before a righteous and just God.
1 Timothy 1:8-10 (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=880#) But we know that the law is good if someone uses it legitimately, 1:9 realizing that law is not intended for a righteous person, but for lawless and rebellious people, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 1:10 sexually immoral, sodomites, kidnappers, liars, perjurers—in fact, for any who live contrary to sound teaching.
In the study of the Bible, there are three specific purposes that surface in the proper use of the Mosaic Law.
(1) In a general sense, it was given to provide a standard of righteousness (Deut. 4:8 (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=880#); Psalm 19:7-9 (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=880#)). In the process, the Mosaic Law revealed the righteousness, holiness, and goodness of God (Deut. 4:8 (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=880#); Lev. 11:44-45 (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=880#); 19:2; 20:7; Rom. 7:12-14 (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=880#)). The Law at Sinai was given to Israel to reveal who God is and to shed light on the reality of an infinite gulf that separates God from man.
Romans 3:19 (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=880#) Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world may be held accountable to God.
Romans 3 (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=880#): 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
(2) The Law was given to identify sin and reveal man’s sin and bankrupt condition as guilty before God (Rom. 3 (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=880#):19f; 7:7-8; 5:20; Gal. 3:19 (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=880#)). God’s holy Law reveals to man just who and what he is—sinful and separated from God by an infinite gulf that he is unable to bridge in his own human strength.
Romans 3:19-20 (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=880#) Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 3:20 For no one is declared righteous before him by the works of the law, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin.
(3) The Law was given to shut man up to faith, i.e., to exclude the works of the Law (or any system of works) as a system of merit for either salvation or sanctification and thereby lead him to Christ as the only means of righteousness (Gal. 3:19-20, 20-24 (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=880#); 1 Tim. 1:8-9 (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=880#); Rom. 3:21-24 (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=880#)). The ceremonial portion of the Law did this by pointing to the coming of a suffering Savior, “for without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness” (Heb. 9:22 (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=880#)).
Romans 3:21-24 (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=880#) But now apart from the law the righteousness of God, which is attested by the law and the prophets, has been disclosed— 3:22 namely, the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.3:24 But they are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.
Galatians 3:24-26 (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=880#) Thus the law had become our guardian13 (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=880#P123_28126) until Christ, so that we could be declared righteous by faith. 3:25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian. 3:26 For in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God through faith.

Captain_BluTac

02-23-2008, 01:44 PM

Sparkle, not being funny, but your being a bit out of order as opposed to arguing why homosexuality is ok you are arguing why Christianity is not.

Mr Sparkle

02-23-2008, 01:45 PM

and I have explained to you that this is still a debate within the church itself
i.e. people disagree with you, people that have dedicated their lives to bible study.

why?
because it is UNCLEAR.
you pick and choose those things that mesh well with your prejudice while ignoring those that don't.

simple.

jaguarr

02-23-2008, 01:47 PM

Use the bible to dictate how you live your own life, if you must, but don't use it to dictate to others. :up:

jag

Mr Sparkle

02-23-2008, 01:47 PM

Sparkle, not being funny, but your being a bit out of order as opposed to arguing why homosexuality is ok you are arguing why Christianity is not.

no, actually I tried to avoid it, I did, I even asked a dude why homosexuality is wrong DIRECTLY.

I have done everything to keep this on topic, and so far all the responses I have gotten?

" the bible told me it was"

so then, I have to address the source don't I?
in other words, if Christianity is not to be attacked, then it shouldn't be brought up as a valid reason for prejudice should it?

The Guard

02-23-2008, 01:48 PM

That's all well and good for sheep...but what are we to do?

Star

02-23-2008, 01:49 PM

Accept that two men or two women have just as much of a right to be united as a couple under law as a man and women do?

Captain_BluTac

02-23-2008, 01:50 PM

no, actually I tried to avoid it, I did, I even asked a dude why homosexuality is wrong DIRECTLY.

I have done everything to keep this on topic, and so far all the responses I have gotten?

" the bible told me it was"

so then, I have to address the source don't I?
in other words, if Christianity is not to be attacked, then it shouldn't be brought up as a valid reason for prejudice should it?

Well don't get me wrong I agree with you (to some extent) Christianity is wrong in almost every misguided and hateful belief, but I fear when a mod comes into this thread they wont see it as you defending homosexuality, just attacking Christianity, I think it's clear what I am saying.

Mr Sparkle

02-23-2008, 02:18 PM

Well don't get me wrong I agree with you (to some extent) Christianity is wrong in almost every misguided and hateful belief, but I fear when a mod comes into this thread they wont see it as you defending homosexuality, just attacking Christianity, I think it's clear what I am saying.

yes it is, but it's also then impossible to have any kind of debate is it?

"why is homosexuality wrong?"

"uh...jesus told me."

"oh, ok, I don't want to offend Jesus, but feel free to act as if homosexuals ( who we can actually see) are less human than you."

this isn't even about religion, same sex marriage only applies in the legal sense, so bringing religion into it?
INSANE.
but again, it's not ME.
it's not as if I'm proposing that gay people should be married in churches and priests should be forced to do this.
:whatever:
all I'm talking about is the legal aspect, the human rights aspect.

Why Are You Crouching Spock?

02-23-2008, 02:21 PM

no.

Alex The Great

02-23-2008, 03:15 PM

Lesbos are hawt :csad::up:

gays.....meh not so much.

i don't have a prohblem though. if they wanna make love to same gender persons then go ahead.

SuperMonkey

02-23-2008, 03:25 PM

I could not possibly care less.

so thats a yes.

BlackLantern

02-23-2008, 04:41 PM

I choose to not to live my life by the worlds best selling work of fiction....a book that was basically written by the ruling class to keep the people in line with the fear of GOD.......Again, leaving the bible out of the argument, there is no logical reason that 2 consenting adults cannot be married. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean its wrong.

Star

02-23-2008, 05:24 PM

Hear hear

LegoMyEggo

02-23-2008, 06:10 PM

Here's a question for people using the religious/Bible argument: If the Bible said nothing about homosexuality or it being a sin and allowed it, but you still don't like it because YOU think it's wrong, what would you vote for? Seems that people are letting religion dictate what they think other people should or should not do. It all plays into the pompous mindset of "We're better than you, we know what's right, therefore we hold power of what's allowed" bull****.

Or as Carlin says:

"Do you believe in God?"
"No"
"BANG- Dead."

"Do YOU believe in God?"
"Yes."
"Do you believe in our God?"
"No."
"BANG- DEAD! Our God has a bigger dick than your god!"

spike spiegel

02-23-2008, 06:27 PM

Here's a question for people using the religious/Bible argument: If the Bible said nothing about homosexuality or it being a sin and allowed it, but you still don't like it because YOU think it's wrong, what would you vote for?

I am letting myself surrender to what I believe in - the authority of Scripture.

But otherwise, if the Bible said nothing about it and allowed it, then I'd think nothing of it either. :cwink: There is a such thing as love between a man and a man, or woman and woman, right? And I wouldn't want to disagree with love! But it's my way of life, instructed by what Scripture says. So, I don't agree with that lifestyle.

At the same time, I've had two friends who are gay (and practice the lifestyle), and I've never imposed my view on them. I'd rather not give my view unless they ask me, but it doesn't change my feelings for them as a friend, or what have you. I don't believe they're any less human than I am, or any less of a sinner than I am. However, same sex marriage is just something that I disagree with, and think is wrong, just the same as I think lying, gluttony, murder, and all sin is wrong.

It just comes down to what I believe in, and some here are saying that religion shouldn't be a factor at all in this thread, but the fact is that religion is the reason behind my and other's disagreement with homosexuality, and there's no other way around that. Like it or not, when you talk about homosexuality, most of the the time someone is probably going to bring up religion.

BlackLantern

02-23-2008, 06:37 PM

I am letting myself surrender to what I believe in - the authority of Scripture.

But otherwise, if the Bible said nothing about it and allowed it, then I'd think nothing of it either. :cwink: There is a such thing as love between a man and a man, or woman and woman, right? And I wouldn't want to disagree with love! But it's my way of life, instructed by what Scripture says. So, I don't agree with that lifestyle.

At the same time, I've had two friends who are gay (and practice the lifestyle), and I've never imposed my view on them. I'd rather not give my view unless they ask me, but it doesn't change my feelings for them as a friend, or what have you. I don't believe they're any less human than I am, or any less of a sinner than I am. However, same sex marriage is just something that I disagree with, and think is wrong, just the same as I think lying, gluttony, murder, and all sin is wrong.

It just comes down to what I believe in, and some here are saying that religion shouldn't be a factor at all in this thread, but the fact is that religion is the reason behind my and other's disagreement with homosexuality, and there's no other way around that. Like it or not, when you talk about homosexuality, most of the the time someone is probably going to bring up religion.

By you even saying this shows that you do consider them "less than" at some level....though you might not want to admit it to yourself

spike spiegel

02-23-2008, 06:46 PM

By you even saying this shows that you do consider them "less than" at some level....though you might not want to admit it to yourself

Then I should also consider liers less than myself too, I guess. I don't think I ever said I wanted gay marriage banned (actually, after remembering my early posts, I'm pretty sure I did, in a way, but please excuse me while I change my view), but if the Christian community wants it to be done away with, they still know that homosexuality will exist, whether or not they can marry. I am not ready to ban the right for gays to marry. I've been ready, though, to silently disagree.

If the right is there, that's fine with me. Homosexuals will be homosexuals whether or not they live under the same roof in wedlock, and sinners always marry sinners.

Cobblepot

02-23-2008, 06:51 PM

I don't care, if it makes them happy.

BlackLantern

02-23-2008, 06:56 PM

If the right is there, that is fine. Homosexuals will be homosexuals whether or not they live under the same roof in wedlock, and sinners always marry sinners.

OK....go with that...seems to work for you

Mr Sparkle

02-24-2008, 12:07 AM

same sex marriage is just something that I disagree with, and think is wrong

please stop, we have been over this.
you don't THINK it's wrong.
you have been told it's wrong and you simply repeat what you were taught.
but YOU don't THINK it's wrong.
else when asked you would be able to produce a reason behind your thoughts.

Cunning Stunts

02-24-2008, 02:10 AM

Jake Cassidy

02-24-2008, 02:39 AM

The ignorance of people never ceases to amaze me. :whatever:

Yes, homosexuals should have the right to get married. Just so they can suffer like the rest of us. :oldrazz:

It should be against the law for ignorant morons being allowed to breed.

dpm07

02-24-2008, 05:47 AM

I have no problem with homosexuals getting married. They're not hurting anyone, and they are just living their lives the way they want. Let them.

Memphis Slim

02-24-2008, 06:25 AM

A better question for the Bible Thumpers:

Why is homosexuality wrong? Give a legitimate answer, please. "The Bible says so," does not cut it.

The Bible is not the word of God or Jesus, so don't try that one either.

Nothing cuts it it for you people. I've gone the non-Bible route already. Yet it's you guys that keep bringing it up. Your minds are made up. Mine is too.

BlackLantern

02-24-2008, 07:44 AM

^^^I think you simply don't like it because you think it's icky....hardly a good reason. I know this is a bit out of left field, but I'm surprised more minority groups don't support the homosexual community. Both are groups of people that are discriminated against and are considered by some to be less than equal...just a random thought

Hotwire

02-24-2008, 08:49 AM

Today's study question:
-How may men who are against gay marriage, enjoy watching lesbian porn?

BlackLantern

02-24-2008, 08:51 AM

Today's study question:
-How may men who are against gay marriage, enjoy watching lesbian porn?

I know...the ignorance is astounding

Joe M.

02-24-2008, 09:02 AM

This will be a long post, because a lot has already been said that I'd like to address, and also because this isn't a topic that can fairly be discussed in only a few sentences.

like I have said, consenting adults should be able to lead their lives in the way they choose as long as their decisions don't adversely affect another.
Homosexuals are not being denied the ability to have relationships. What consenting adults do privately is one thing. Asking for government recognition of it is another.

no "dude" YOU think it's not normal. what's this "if it was it would stand alone" bunk? what does that even mean? "mankind doesn't benefit"?
Just think about homosexual desire for a moment. First, there is no conclusive scientific evidence that people are born predestined to have homosexual desires. Even the APA says that. There may be certain genetic markers that indicate a predisposition towards adapting said behavior once exposed to certain other factors, but predisposition is not the same as predetermination.

Second, regarding the "normal" aspect: what makes it normal? It is a condition that is in contrast to the natural biological functioning of the human body. It's a life-giving dead end, because life cannot come naturally from a homosexual union. The point in raising the scenario whereby everyone was homosexual is that if such a thing occurred, a species would die out. How can something that would lead to extinction be considered "normal"?

Even if a person was born with homosexual desires, that alone does not normalize the inclination. For example, a person can be born blind, yet that is clearly not the normal state in which the person should have been born. Something is either wrong genetically or was adversely affected in the womb to render the person without the proper and naturally determined use of his eyesight. Eyes are meant to see. When they don't, something is wrong. Male and female are meant to be attracted to each other ... it serves a biological purpose. To remove that desire acts in opposition to the biology of our bodies.

Others have raised the points that just being homosexual does not mean being unable to reproduce (per se), and that scientific advancement allows for artificial insemination and surrogate motherhood. True. Part of the problem with such thinking is that we've effectively turned children into commodities. And the way in which it relates to the above example is still that it would be an unnatural method of continuing the species to do so purely based on science, or it would require people to have sex with others, against their will to an extent, because there would be no sexual attraction or desire.

ha! such simplistic approach to things, I guess you oppose people who can't conceive marrying right?
since their union doesn't " benefit mankind" ( yeah, that's what MORE people are at this point a " benefit") but hey, let's follow your line of reasoning.
these people aren't going to procreate anyway, so your point is moot.
Part of the difference here is that an infertile couple is meant to be able to conceive, but for one reason or another something is not working correctly. The goal in these cases should be to correct the problem so that the body does work as intended. In comparison to a homosexual couple, they are not designed to be able to procreate naturally, and will never be able to do so naturally.

The thing is, to insist that only "fertile" couples could marry would require even more governmental intrusion, not less, into one's life. Aren't people for gay "marriage" trying to argue against more intrusion? The assumption is that a heterosexual couple is fertile, because that is the intended and natural working state of our bodies. Homosexual unions, however, quite obviously cannot procreate naturally, fertile or not, and thus do not quite fit your analogy of why one is allowed while the other is not.

Part of it boils down to respecting the laws of nature, vs doing what we want. If people want to live in a homosexual relationship, that is up to them, but I don't see why it requires governmental and public recognition.

Well, some have brought up the argument that the shift of the legal definition of marriage could cause problems. They say that it will spark a continuous mutation of the definition until it includes marriage to animals, or multiple spouses.

The union between two consenting adults, however, is far different than between a man or woman and an animal, or a man and multiple people.
I wouldn't go so far to say humans and animals will ever be legalized, but as for other human arrangements, yes, I believe that could eventually happen. You say the union between two consenting adults is far different than union of multiple people, and thus the latter is unlikely. However, the union between two men is far different than 1 man and 1 woman. 50 years ago homosexual unions would have been seen as never happening.

There are several points that need to be addressed, I think. If one feels that marriage is nothing more than the union of two consenting adults who "love" each other, then why not polygamy? Why not incest? If the only factors involved are consent and love, there isn't a valid reason to exclude these other relationships.

But, marriage is also a social institution recognized by and afforded certain benefits from the government, because the marital union is the most responsible unit for providing a safe, stable, and secure environment for the creation and raising of a family. Procreation and family does play a role in the definition of marriage, and that is why incest is excluded. By that same reasoning, homosexuality should also be excluded.

The government has a vested interest in assisting a marital union, because that union would ideally bring forth children, who would then grow up and be productive and responsible members of society. In order to facilitate the raising of children, and promote the best environment in which to raise them, married couples are afforded certain benefits that single or non-married couples may not automatically have.

The government itself doesn't care about love or who someone shacks up with. What the government cares about is what may come from that union, and how it may serve the future of society.

What about artificial insemination and surrogate motherhood? True, those are options. But as I expressed above, I feel those options are helping to turn the idea of children into commodities to be had just because one wants children. Some women, for example, without any desire to have a husband or even a relationship, decide they want children and resort to this method. Where children were once a privilege afforded to those willing to commit to a stable heterosexual relationship, some people now consider them a "right". No one person has a right to a child ... if we each had a right, we wouldn't require another person with which to create a child. Children are now becoming commodities to be bought and created by science, impersonally, sometimes just because one person may want a child.

What about adoption? True, adoption may be an option to provide homosexual couples with children. However, two points belong with this (the first admittedly very long term). The ultimate goal in any society would be to eliminate the need for adoption, and have every child wanted by his or her parents. When that can be made to happen, barring science (which I feel is a bit unethical on this point, as stated above), homosexuals have no natural recourse to children, and thus again do not fit into the purpose of the marital unit.

Second, there is a question on the appropriateness of a homosexual couple raising children anyway. Men and women are complementary both physically, and psychologically. Same-sex couples lack that complementarity. Children benefit from having not just two parents generally, but a mother and a father specifically. In particular the importance of a father, for example, has often been pointed out in studies about children's performance in school, likelihood to engage in substance abuse, etc. This is not to say that homosexual parents are automatically bad parents, no more than single parents are automatically bad parents. Nor does it say that heterosexual couples are automatically good parents. What I mean is that, all other factors being equal, a heterosexual parental union is the most responsible union in which to raise children, and the one which should be encouraged. Unfortunately sometimes events like death or divorce interfere and may create a less than ideal situation to an already existing family. But why should we intentionally put children into a situation that we know is not naturally ordered and starting at a disadvantage to begin with?

When it comes to issues like marriage or adoption, simply considering an individual's rights is no longer the only issue ... because the familial institution is about more than just the individual.

Finally, would homosexual "marriage" directly harm any specific individual, or affect any existing heterosexual marriage? No, not likely.

But we live in a society, not a vacuum. People are influenced by the actions of others.

One example that relates to the topic's issue is how birth control affected sexual attitudes over time. When it was still a relatively new thing, the mantra of those in favor of its legalization may just as well have been "how does my using birth control affect you?" Directly, it doesn't. But over time, the expanded use and promotion of birth control has contributed to a lowering of sexual standards. If birth control was allowed to be used by married couples, then that encourages the perception that sex is not about procreation, but pleasure first. If it's about pleasure, then it doesn't matter if sex takes place in marriage or out. In fact, why limit it to adults? Why limit it to heterosexuals? Why limit it to couples?

Yes, people with more casual attitudes about sex have always existed. But in the modern world it's never been so condoned and accepted as now. This is not to say that sex must be an attempt to procreate every single time. But those who engage in sex, even if not trying to have children, should be open to the possibility of children. Take away that openness, and we can see some of the results of our more casual attitudes about sex: More unwanted children, aborted children, single parents, spread of disease, non-marital sex, teen sex, etc.

The idea of homosexual "marriage" would never have gotten so far if heterosexuals (in general) hadn't already shown such a blatant disregard for marriage and the importance of sex within that union. Government recognition of homosexual unions would just be a further chipping away at the institution of marriage and further the perceived acceptance of inappropriate sexual behavior among all people. If two guys incapable of procreation can have government approved sex, it further reinforces the mentality that sex is all about pleasure first, so what does it matter if two fourteen year olds decide to have sex?

Now maybe a lot of people reading this don't care about the above effects. That's irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make, however, which is that culture does change over time based on the attitudes of the people. This is one way in which redefining the institution may not affect the individual, but does affect the future attitudes of the culture. Further legalization of homosexual marriage will encourage polygamists or family members to push for "equal rights", because they "are consenting adults who love each other and want to dedicate their lives to each other."

If they want to live in those situations, fine. But they shouldn't receive governmental recognition of it.

Carcharodon

02-24-2008, 09:06 AM

If one feels that marriage is nothing more than the union of two consenting adults who "love" each other, then why not polygamy?:dry: ...are you sure you know what polygamy is?

Joe M.

02-24-2008, 09:18 AM

:dry: ...are you sure you know what polygamy is?
Okay, yes, you caught a grammatical goof. I think you probably know what I meant, however.

Carcharodon

02-24-2008, 09:20 AM

Okay, yes, you caught a grammatical goof. I think you probably know what I meant, however.That's not grammatical, it's logical. :huh: In any case, yeah, I see your point...even though I have to disagree. :up:

Eggyman

02-24-2008, 09:23 AM

I'd love to join in with this conversation, but there's no way in hell that I'm reading Joe's exceptionally long post :o

So I'll just say yeah, I agree :)

Carcharodon

02-24-2008, 09:25 AM

I'd love to join in with this conversation, but there's no way in hell that I'm reading Joe's exceptionally long post :o

So I'll just say yeah, I agree :)Um...I respect your honesty. :yay:

BlackLantern

02-24-2008, 09:31 AM

a big part of this seems to be benefits and such. Let's say Bob and Steve are a couple and Steve gets into a really bad accident and is either killed or is in a vegetative state. If they were "married" Bob would be able to receive any insurance or benefits that resulted from that. You also have some cases where only a "spouse" or family member can see a hospitalized person, so there is that as well

Joe M.

02-24-2008, 09:33 AM

That's not grammatical, it's logical. :huh:
:cmad:
:cwink:
I put a word in where I shouldn't have. I clarified the point I was making in the last sentence of the paragraph, though.

I'd love to join in with this conversation, but there's no way in hell that I'm reading Joe's exceptionally long post
:csad:

Eggyman

02-24-2008, 09:36 AM

Um...I respect your honesty. :yay:

Thanks ;)

It's not normally my thing, but I'm at work and just need things that suit the short attention I am able to give at the moment.

Don't be sad, Joe. I promise I'll read it later :)

q_ball76207

02-24-2008, 10:05 AM

If same sex relations were not a sin things might be different it is still vulgar .The main reason for sex in the first place is for reproductive purposes two men or two woman together cannot produce a child allthough that is ok maybe the gays will die out sometime due to the lack of ability to reproduce .I don't personaly have a problem with gays i have some friends that are gay . I am kinda torn in my beliefs and the fact that i want my fiends to be happy .If this is what makes them happy even though i don't aprove i am not going to judge them for it . It is not my place to judge anyone. That is between them and god.

Bill

02-24-2008, 10:19 AM

Now maybe a lot of people reading this don't care about the above effects. That's irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make, however, which is that culture does change over time based on the attitudes of the people. This is one way in which redefining the institution may not affect the individual, but does affect the future attitudes of the culture. Further legalization of homosexual marriage will encourage polygamists or family members to push for "equal rights", because they "are consenting adults who love each other and want to dedicate their lives to each other."

If they want to live in those situations, fine. But they shouldn't receive governmental recognition of it.

Two words come to mind when reading your "argument". Non-sequitur and slippery slope. Countries where gay marriage has been adopted have led to no such consequences, and with the many people with criminal backgrounds, such as murder, rape and pedophilia being allowed to marry and doing so, why is there not such a clamor for them? I suspect the lack of outcry for these unions masks the real motives of those opposing gay marriage. It's more about opposing homosexuality. At least those who are upfront about it are honest instead of writing long-winded diatribes full of fallacious thinking.

Carcharodon

02-24-2008, 10:33 AM

Two words come to mind when reading your "argument". Non-sequitur and slippery slope. Countries where gay marriage has been adopted have led to no such consequences, and with the many people with criminal backgrounds, such as murder, rape and pedophilia being allowed to marry and doing so, why is there not such a clamor for them? I suspect the lack of outcry for these unions masks the real motives of those opposing gay marriage. It's more about opposing homosexuality. At least those who are upfront about it are honest instead of writing long-winded diatribes full of fallacious thinking.Once again, you take my thoughts and word them far better than I have the capacity to for the time being. :up: