NationStates Jolt Archive

First of all, I didn't say anything about tradition. Second of all, I never support randomly changing the definitions of words, for instance when "gay fag" became "homosexual homosexual person" instead of "happy cigarette." It doesn't matter whether it is related to marriage or not. Thirdly, the equality point is out, because we are already equal. Homosexual men can marry all the women they want, just like any straight man. Homosexual men can't marry men, of course, but neither can straight men.

Why shouldn't men be allowed to marry men and women be allowed to marry women? Didn't you say that the entire "the union of a man and a woman of the same race" was a result of racism and has been changed? Therefore marriage meaning "the union of a man and a woman" is not "the marriage of two people of right mind and legal age" due to homophobia. And it wouldn't be a random change it would be a very deliberate change. Also neither homosexual nor heterosexual men can marry as many women as they like, legaly.

Neo Rogolia I suppose I somewhat understand. Still, please respect people are very different. I'd personally get very angry if someone aggressively tried to convert me to some religion in real life.
It's not very nice at all to be condemned by people who think they hold the ultimate truth and the ultimate morals. Quite frankly, it's impossible to be on the recieving end of that and not feel hated.
Perhaps it is just an attempt to assimilate people into your belief-system, but doing it by preaching damnation and telling people they're reprehensible really doesn't further your agenda. It just provokes an urge to cause you immense and immediate physical pain. Because you give your target the impression that that is what you wish for him/her to experience.
Ideally I'd very much like people not to try and convert anyone unless encouraged to do so by the individual. I am not going to try to convince you that your god is imaginary. You - ideally - don't cause me any harm by believing in it, just like I don't cause you any harm by not doing it. And neither one of us are going to change our minds about it, no matter how many offences or damnations we fling at eachother.
In short, we can respect eachother or we can have verbal war.

About that gay marriage thing: Call it whatever you please. The point is marriage conveys certain legal rights that most sorts of civil unions does not. The name of the thing is completely irrelevant. It's the legal standing of homosexual couples vs. heterosexual couples that matters. Like I've already said, I see no reason not to grant homosexuals equal rights.

It's not about church marriages or changing religious institutions.

Why shouldn't men be allowed to marry men and women be allowed to marry women? Didn't you say that the entire "the union of a man and a woman of the same race" was a result of racism and has been changed? Therefore marriage meaning "the union of a man and a woman" is not "the marriage of two people of right mind and legal age" due to homophobia. And it wouldn't be a random change it would be a very deliberate change. Also neither homosexual nor heterosexual men can marry as many women as they like, legaly.

No, I said that the interpretation of marriage as being between two people of the same race was the result of racism. That was never an actual definition. In contrast, marriage being the legal union of a man and a woman is a definition. Also, the "all the women/men they want" part was implying that they get divorces first. Apologies on that one.

Truly indicative of how religious conservatives reject logic. Cheers~

I think all my conflicting emtions can be summed up in one memorable phrase: WTFLOL

No, I said that the interpretation of marriage as being between two people of the same race was the result of racism. That was never an actual definition. In contrast, marriage being the legal union of a man and a woman is a definition. Also, the "all the women/men they want" part was implying that they get divorces first. Apologies on that one.
You are, of course, dead on. But it's besides the point.
I'm certain, given your understanding of language, you know the word marriage in the title of this thread means a legally binding union between 2 people who love eachother.
Personally I agree than calling it marriage is a bad idea. Not because it will change the meaning of the word, but because it, in a way, can be considered demeaning to a wide range of religions and their followers. I don't give a toss about the current definition of the word itself. It's splitting hairs ;)

No, I said that the interpretation of marriage as being between two people of the same race was the result of racism. That was never an actual definition. In contrast, marriage being the legal union of a man and a woman is a definition. Also, the "all the women/men they want" part was implying that they get divorces first. Apologies on that one.

Go back in time visit Virginia or just about any Southern state for that matter and suggest that their interpretation of marriage is wrong. They will say you are lieing and probably harass/injure you for it. Same applies here.

o.o you're my hero -constructs a statue out of post-it notes in your honor and idolizes it-

I most definitely agree.

ALL YOU PEOPLE WHO WANT TO BE IN A GAY MARRIAGE CAN STICK IT UP YOURE ARSE AS GOD IS GOING TO SEND YOU TO HELL WERE SATAN WILL JAM PINEAPPLES IN YOURE HOLE MAYBE THIS IS WHAT YOU WANT I CANT JUDGE ONLY GUESS :sniper: :gundge:

Not all Catholics are anti gay marriage, just thought I'd mention that.

And the Bible shouldn't be taken word for word. I mean it was written 2000 years ago for people 2000 years ago. I'm not saying its obsolete I'm saying that we live in a different world now and we need to adapt but the Bible can still teach us things.

If only right wing Christians felt that way. I'm Catholic, gay, and also read the Bible.

ALL YOU PEOPLE WHO WANT TO BE IN A GAY MARRIAGE CAN STICK IT UP YOURE ARSE AS GOD IS GOING TO SEND YOU TO HELL WERE SATAN WILL JAM PINEAPPLES IN YOURE HOLE MAYBE THIS IS WHAT YOU WANT I CANT JUDGE ONLY GUESS :sniper: :gundge:

Take the caps lock of child.

You know God?

Can you ask him where I can find my keys?

I most definitely agree.

Wow, Idolized by two people.

...this is a first :D

ALL YOU PEOPLE WHO WANT TO BE IN A GAY MARRIAGE CAN STICK IT UP YOURE ARSE AS GOD IS GOING TO SEND YOU TO HELL WERE SATAN WILL JAM PINEAPPLES IN YOURE HOLE MAYBE THIS IS WHAT YOU WANT I CANT JUDGE ONLY GUESS :sniper: :gundge:

First off, I'm gonna geuss that's a modable offense along the lines of flaming. Secondly, Satan only personally shoves pineapples up Hitler's ass.

First off, I'm gonna geuss that's a modable offense along the lines of flaming. Secondly, Satan only personally shoves pineapples up Hitler's ass.

I thought he gave him Christmas trees?

*Starts singing*

"It's Christmas time in Hell!"

Wow, Idolized by two people.

...this is a first :D
Heh, by three people really ;)

First off, I'm gonna geuss that's a modable offense along the lines of flaming. Secondly, Satan only personally shoves pineapples up Hitler's ass.

Actually, no. Hitler is actually in heaven. Satan came up with the ultimate punishment for him, and for once, God agreed.

Hitler is in a room full of Jewish people, and must obey their every command. His soul body actually responds to pain and damage like a normal human body, but he lives on - no matter the damage, which heals three hours later.

Its amazing that, after he finally blows his top and starts ranting, one of my people would say, "Oh, just go shoot yourself in the face," and he does so.

Satan shoves pinapples into a certain breed of people's asses, and I'm leaving you to guess who with this clue:

I don't like 'em either, as has been evidenced in this thread :D

a little bit back in this thred someone metion the idear of 'Geenes' and 'studys' and things like that

http://www.petertatchell.net/gay%20gene/gene%20genie.htm

that is an artical written by a Famus (so im told anyway ive never heard of him) Gay rights protestor

Best Wishes Dave

Heh, by three people really ;)

YES! MY PLAN IS WORKING!

My Legions of Doom are growing! Soon, I will use them to obtain my ultimate goals!

...to get enough people in a group together to pay for a day for the local waterpark to open just for said group. :D

a little bit back in this thred someone metion the idear of 'Geenes' and 'studys' and things like that

http://www.petertatchell.net/gay%20gene/gene%20genie.htm

that is an artical written by a Famus (so im told anyway ive never heard of him) Gay rights protestor

Best Wishes Dave


a little bit back in this thred someone metion the idear of 'Geenes' and 'studys' and things like that

http://www.petertatchell.net/gay%20gene/gene%20genie.htm

that is an artical written by a Famus (so im told anyway ive never heard of him) Gay rights protestor

Best Wishes Dave

Thanks Dave! :D

Well a gay guy about summed it up for me.

Quoted from above link:

Quote:"There is, however, one very serious practical problem with this idea. If heterosexuality and homosexuality are, indeed, genetically predetermined (and therefore mutually exclusive and unchangeable), how do we explain bisexuality or people who, suddenly in mid-life, switch from heterosexuality to homosexuality (or vice versa)? We can't." End quote

Quote:"By about the age of five or six, these social influences lay the basis of an individual's sexual orientation. Because sexuality is fixed at such an early age, many lesbians and gay men feel they have been homosexual all their lives and therefore mistakenly conclude they must have been born queer." End quote

My point is that both the christians and the gays base their some of arguments on myths

Quote:"The truth is that nurture appears to be more important than nature when it comes to the formation of sexual orientation. Most studies indicate that genetic factors, while not unimportant, are of secondary significance compared to social influences, such as the relationship between a child and its parents, formative childhood experiences, cultural mores and peer pressure." End quote

This is why I am weary of gay parents. I recently saw a documentary on public television which included segments on gay male parents and their adopted male children. One of the "families" profiled was a white gay male couple who adopted a black child. I mean did anybody think about the child when making this decision?
That is not the strangest thing, the gay parents bought this child women's high heels and encouraged him to wear them around the house! They also bought him girls dolls. I did'nt see any toys that were'nt female oriented. This documentary spanned a few years and during the whole show I did'nt see this poor child interact with one heterosexual male. This couple was trying to influence this childs development! The narrator said nothing about any of these glaring disparities. Why? Because this was gay pride week programming here in wonderful San Francisco.

Quote:"What certainly can change as people grow older is their ability to accept and express formerly repressed queer desires. A person who is ostensibly heterosexual might, in their mid-30s, become aware of a previously unrecognised same-sex attraction that had been dormant and unconscious since childhood. Society's positive affirmation of homosexuality might help such a person discover and explore those latent, hidden feelings." End quote

If, you are such a person I sympathize with your unfortunate situation and hope that you reconcile whatever discord you may have with your sexual identity, but please don't seek to perpetuate your neurosis thru the next generation in order to feel more normal.

....and Christian parent's don't try to influence how their kids develop...?

Don't make me laugh. All parents influence how their children will grow up. I was raised liberal, far left liberal - and I'm actually a conservative. It happens.

....and Christian parent's don't try to influence how their kids develop...?

Don't make me laugh. All parents influence how their children will grow up. I was raised liberal, far left liberal - and I'm actually a conservative. It happens.

Look I dont think perents should intentionaly influnce their childs sexual development at all, that should work itself out and the vast majority of the time mother nature works. They should only try to prepare that child for the world the best that they can and by giving a child crossed signals they are not helping that child at all.

Besides, what do Christians have to do with what I said?

Look I dont think perents should intentionaly influnce their childs sexual development at all, that should work itself out and the vast majority of the time mother nature works. They should only try to prepare that child for the world the best that they can and by giving a child crossed signals they are not helping that child at all.

Then I think you should look a bit closer afield than what you're doing, then.

Personally, I was raised by two women, with no male figures in my life, and was told by my mother my entire life that men are icky.

I'm a male. Put that together, I was a smart child. I did.

Yet, overall, I was raised better than most people my age were, and certainly behaved better overall in high school than anyone else.

Then I think you should look a bit closer afield than what you're doing, then.

Could you rephrase that please?

Personally, I was raised by two women, with no male figures in my life, and was told by my mother my entire life that men are icky.

I never stated that there would be a 100% gauranteed chance of gay male parents creating little gay male children. But as you implied, all parents tend to try to influence their childrens development, so, following that reasoning would gay male parents not more often than not, successful or not, be interfering with the childs development into a heterosexual? My mother had her issues also but I did'nt adopt them. I do appreciate her understanding that I would most likely turn out straight and supported my interest in masculine activities, and made sure I had interaction with healthy male role models. I also had my dads parents who helped raise me and were my only real example of stability and of a healthy long term relationship and they are still happy. Seems natural.

I'm a male. Put that together, I was a smart child. I did.

Me too

Yet, overall, I was raised better than most people my age were, and certainly behaved better overall in high school than anyone else.

wow, me too. Of course my school was pretty rowdy. :D

Could you rephrase that please?


I said, you should look a bit closer to home.


I never stated that there would be a 100% gauranteed chance of gay male parents creating little gay male children. But as you implied, all parents tend to try to influence their childrens development, so, following that reasoning would gay male parents not more often than not, successful or not, be interfering with the childs development into a heterosexual? My mother had her issues also but I did'nt adopt them. I do appreciate her understanding that I would most likely turn out straight and supported my interest in masculine activities, and made sure I had interaction with healthy male role models. I also had my dads parents who helped raise me and were my only real example of stability and of a healthy long term relationship and they are still happy. Seems natural.


All parents interfire with their childs natural development. Its called 'Parenting'. The example with the gay couple dressing up their childen in girl's clothing and encouraging him to walk around in high heels, thats... not normal. For straight and gay parents, thats just not right.


Me too



wow, me too. Of course my school was pretty rowdy. :D

The last three quotes you had were actually part of the same thought.

"My mom said all the while I was a kid that men were Icky. I was a guy. I was a smart kid and put two and two together. Yet, despite that, I turned out pretty damn better than alot of others."

Obviously that gay couple you described should never have had a kid. At least not if your description is accurate.

But don't assume gays raise their children any different than staright parents. Sure, there will always be the occational bad parents, but that goes for everyone, not just homo's.

If I ever decide to have a kid and raise him with a male partner, you can be damn sure the very last thing I'll ever do will be to try and undermine his masculinity. You can also be damn sure I would have more than one female rolemodel he could spend time with.
I'm sure there's some really shitty aspects to having homo parents, especially for teenagers. I'm also sure it's nothing responsible parents can't solve by being honest woth the child and provide 1 or more stable and life long role models of the opposite sex.

I agree parents should not try to affect their offspring's sexuality in any way. A parents only responsibility in that respect is to make sure the kid knows the basics of it and make sure they pratice safe sex.
Lesbians bitching about men or the opposite is shit. How can that possibly serve the best interest of the child? I thought parents were in it to help make the most well balanced human being they possibly could.

I'm surprised that nobody has actually brought up the only valid arguement against homosexual marriage.

There is one, by the by, one that doesn't resort to "Sanctity of Marriage" "God hates Gays" "Its icky."

Should I say what it is?

I don't have to have committed murder to know that murder is wrong. I don't have to be a child molester to know that child molestationis wrong. I don't have to be a bigamist to know that bigamy is wrong. I don't have to be an arsonist to know that arson is wrong. And, I don't have to have spent an significant amount of time studying them to know that they are wrong.

It's quite simple -- either you believe in absolute right and wrong, based on the Bilbe, or you don't. Just because some people do doesn't mean that they are "judging" anyone. Conduct that doesn't meet the standard is wrong, not because I said so but because it doesn't meet the standard.


Why is bigamy wrong? Why must humans live in couples?
Why not enlarge the family so that more adults are included in the union?
It is safer for the children, they get more attention and the family economy is improved.
I see nothing wrong in committing myself to a polygamous family, for my future childrens sake.

Why is bigamy wrong? Why must humans live in couples?
Why not enlarge the family so that more adults are included in the union?
It is safer for the children, they get more attention and the family economy is improved.
I see nothing wrong in committing myself to a polygamous family, for my future childrens sake.

A reason to support polygamy:

There will be no shortage of people to help raise for and care for the children. I like this.

Quite a few in this society, yes. And from the gay men I have interacted with, it seems that they accentuate the worst traits in men and adopt the worst traits in women in their quest to create an identity for themselves.

You must have a very small circle of gay friends, because those who I associate with certainly don't have those traits. Some of us are a little more Femme than the stereotypical male, but at the same time, we certainly don't have the worst traights.

To simply paint all gay swith the same brush, is simply simplistic at best, and bigoted at worse. There are 15million gays in the US, do you think that everyone of them are alike?

Sure, there are assholes, and there are also very nice people, just like in the 'straight world' - some have issues, and yes, they need to be sorted out, but abusing them, and giving them a hard time isn't the way.

I was raised by my mother, my dad was a loser but I had other healthy male role models in my family, whom, being hetero, I could relate to. I feel sorry for the hetero male child whom has no mother and cant relate to his "dads". Women are natural child rearers I actually know a lesbian couple whom raised a healthy hetero male child. They made sure that he had interaction with responsible hetero males which was important for his development into a healthy male adult. They understood this. Ive seen documentaries about gay male couples raising male childeren and from what I could see there were no alternatives to gay males for the children to interact with and this seems very irresponsible. Knowing that children often adopt the traits and mannerisms of their parents how would that affect their interaction with other heterosexual males and females, nobody knows, we are seeing the affects of fatherless homes on society right now and going to the other extreme doesnt seem to be an answer. It would be wonderful for that child if they were going to be gay anyways but the odds are against them.

True, but at the same time, the number of gay males who wish to have a child is ALOT lower than those lesbians who wish to.

How many males here can honestly say that when they were told by their wife about that she was pregnant, that there wasn't a moment of regrete? their whole life coming to a complete and crashing end; the ability to go out as a couple without needing to haul around a stroller.

I'm sorry, but for most males, it isn't a natural thing to want to have children; some men say they do, but it has to do more with 'got to fit in witn the Jones and the Smiths' rather than an actual overwhelming desire to have children.

As for myself, as a gay male, I'd make a lousy father and role model; I don't have the parenting attributes; I know *MANY* heterosexual couples who would make terrible parents, but by virtue of the fact that they can bonk, they'll have kids, and able to bring them up in the most crapiest of environments that the two can create.

I said, you should look a bit closer to home.\

For what? Im not a parent, and if I were I would not lay on the political rhetoric or force my opinions of how they should be on them, (barring the obvious,"its not safe to play in the street", stuff. I would be curious as to what interests they developed, and how they explored things. Hell if me and my girlfriend have a child and that child goes into the closet and came out wearing clothes meant for the opposite sex I would probably find it cute. I would not encourage or discourage him/her except when going to school or out for the obvious reasons. If they asked me my opinion on something I would honestly give it but I would stress that is my opinion, I would save the debating and rhetoric for responsible adults who should be able to handle criticisim.



All parents interfire with their childs natural development. Its called 'Parenting'.

It doesnt have to be interfering, Im sorry some parents interfere with their childs development but thats not a good example of parenting



The last three quotes you had were actually part of the same thought.

"My mom said all the while I was a kid that men were Icky. I was a guy. I was a smart kid and put two and two together. Yet, despite that, I turned out pretty damn better than alot of others."

I'm sorry, my mother was just indecisive about men.
Point is I did'nt exactly have the perfect upbringing either.

I'm surprised that nobody has actually brought up the only valid arguement against homosexual marriage.

There is one, by the by, one that doesn't resort to "Sanctity of Marriage" "God hates Gays" "Its icky."

Should I say what it is?

...what, nobody wants to know?

Go ahead.

Thirdly, the equality point is out, because we are already equal. Homosexual men can marry all the women they want, just like any straight man. Homosexual men can't marry men, of course, but neither can straight men.

A woman can marry men, but I cannot. Call that equality?

Very good stuff.. really shows up a lot of hypocrasies there.. while i'm all for gay marriage, and i think if the dog could sign the marraige paper, then what harm? Anyway.. i dont think gay couples should be allowed to adopt kids.. Not because, and i hate this argument, they might "give the children gay".. But because a child going throught the schooling system with two dads or mothers or whatever would be tormented every day in school.. its not fair to subject a kid to that, and i think the gay community can be very naive on this issue.. An old friend of mine was adopted, he's not at all homophobic, but he said there was no way in hell he would have been able to grow up and face school everyday with a gay couple as his guardians..

I really feel the gay community overlooks this issue and doesnt realise how cruel kids can be.. Bottom line is, its not fair to subject a child to that.. In a perfect world, it wouldnt be an issue, but we dont live in a perfect world.

It shouldn't even be marriage because the word marriage according to our lord the creator God is between man and Women not man and Man or women and Women.

It shouldn't even be marriage because the word marriage according to our lord the creator God is between man and Women not man and Man or women and Women.

your God speaks Hebrew, not English.

It shouldn't even be marriage because the word marriage according to our lord the creator God is between man and Women not man and Man or women and Women.

Your god, not mine.

Very good stuff.. really shows up a lot of hypocrasies there.. while i'm all for gay marriage, and i think if the dog could sign the marraige paper, then what harm? Anyway.. i dont think gay couples should be allowed to adopt kids.. Not because, and i hate this argument, they might "give the children gay".. But because a child going throught the schooling system with two dads or mothers or whatever would be tormented every day in school.. its not fair to subject a kid to that, and i think the gay community can be very naive on this issue.. An old friend of mine was adopted, he's not at all homophobic, but he said there was no way in hell he would have been able to grow up and face school everyday with a gay couple as his guardians..

I really feel the gay community overlooks this issue and doesnt realise how cruel kids can be.. Bottom line is, its not fair to subject a child to that.. In a perfect world, it wouldnt be an issue, but we dont live in a perfect world.

They are naive, and they overlook alot of issues. Almost everytime I have tried to point any of them out, even just for the sake for debate, they assume I'm a right wing bible thumper, even I hav'ent used god or religion as a basis for any of my posts. I think that this is an issue that really needs to be debated so we can work out the flaws of all positions.

But because a child going throught the schooling system with two dads or mothers or whatever would be tormented every day in school.. its not fair to subject a kid to that, and i think the gay community can be very naive on this issue.. An old friend of mine was adopted, he's not at all homophobic, but he said there was no way in hell he would have been able to grow up and face school everyday with a gay couple as his guardians..

Kids unfortunately get teased for a lot of things. The colour of their parents skin. Their parents lack (or abundance) of income. Their accents. The way they dress. The church they frequent and the religious "oddities" they display. In fact, everything which is not considered "normal" is reason to tease.

Once having gay parents is no longer extremely rare and reasonably accepted the amount of teasing will decrease. Not disappear of course - the little Jewish kid after all also still gets picked on. But unfortunately some poor kids will need to be the first to make it easier for later generations :(

What do I care anyways. I think society is on a downward spiral. We can only distract ourselves with trivial issues and hasten its demise, or our demise perhaps.

Besides, Im happy. :D And I love muffins! ;)

Look, I am honestly trying to come out of this with a better understanding of the subjects being discussed.

Then stop being intentionally inflammatory and bigotted.

No Ive just notice that any scientific study that doesnt exactly support the gay party line is considered bigoted or subjective. I believe the there are more reasons to being gay than just being born that way, its kind of like the nature vs. nurture debate, its pointless because its obviously both to varying degrees.

(a) Bullshit. I have seen quite a few scientific studies that don't support the line. Of course, looking at them, they have much less evidence and do nothing to refute the evidence actually in the other studies.

(b) Most traits are both genetic and environmental. However, that doesn't make them a choice.

Quite a few in this society, yes. And from the gay men I have interacted with, it seems that they accentuate the worst traits in men and adopt the worst traits in women in their quest to create an identity for themselves. I was raised by my mother, my dad was a loser but I had other healthy male role models in my family, whom, being hetero, I could relate to. I feel sorry for the hetero male child whom has no mother and cant relate to his "dads". Women are natural child rearers I actually know a lesbian couple whom raised a healthy hetero male child. They made sure that he had interaction with responsible hetero males which was important for his development into a healthy male adult. They understood this. Ive seen documentaries about gay male couples raising male childeren and from what I could see there were no alternatives to gay males for the children to interact with and this seems very irresponsible. Knowing that children often adopt the traits and mannerisms of their parents how would that affect their interaction with other heterosexual males and females, nobody knows, we are seeing the affects of fatherless homes on society right now and going to the other extreme doesnt seem to be an answer. It would be wonderful for that child if they were going to be gay anyways but the odds are against them.

Again, you make silly assumptions. "I saw this one irresponsible gay couple who didn't provide other role-models for their child. Obviously, all gay men will do the same."

I have responded to individuals who speak as if any man who has had sex with a man is homosexual or any woman who has had sex with a female is a lesbian, what about the people who dont fit into your either/or categories. Im saying that alot of posters only speak for a small minority of individuals who have had sex with the same gander.

My either/or categories? That's rich. Nobody in this world fits into neat little categories. However, human beings feel the need to label, so we create broad categories. Even then, most of us don't fit into them.

However, you have been very clear that you think all gay men are the same. Now you have reversed that. Good.

Is it any less illegal to infringe upon a gay persons rights than a straights?

At the moment? Yes. In fact, in many places, homosexuals are denied equal protection by the law itself.

Im all for civil unions being recognised in all 50 states, but are you just going after a "white wedding" fantasy. Or if civil unions were accepted nationwide would that be satisfactory for now?

I am going for equal protection under the law for all people. I don't think it is equal when I my boyfriend and I can get a certain legal protection any time we want but my male friend and his boyfriend cannot.

As for civil unions, if they were all that was offered by the law, they would be fine.

ok I'd like to see someone give a valid reason for calling homosexuality wrong.
Wouldn't we all?
By valid I mean it shouldn't have the words god, the creator, moral, children, or gays are violent. Have fun.
While I see what you mean by excluding these things in any "valid" argument, it still isn't exactly fair to control what words someone uses. What would be better would be forcing them through a course in Logic, and then making sure that the way they use the words is correct. Honesty, I doubt you'll get a response what you say it this way.

-sits back and waits to laugh at peoples attempts- No really in all seriousness I'd like ot see if there's anyone out there that's creative enough to come up with a partially decent and valid reason cause so far all I've heard is lie after lie after lie.
1. It's not a lie if they believe it. A lie is saying something that you believe to be untrue. "True lies", in fact, is not a contradiction, logically speaking. However, the phrase "that's a lie!!!11!1!1" has come to mean the equivolent of "nuh uh!!!!" so I could see why you would be confused. The only overlap between a lie and a falsehood is when the speaker knows the truth and says something different.
2. That said, lots of people don't quite understand the logical meaning of the word "know". I've heard people say "I know there's a God" and I've heard people say "I know there isn't a God", and quite frankly, both of those statements are incorrect. You can't "know" anything about God. Knowledge, logically speaking (which is what should be important in an argu...er..."debate") is justified, true belief. And, since the existence or nonexistence of God can never be proven, it can never be known. It can be your "personal truth", in that you "know, inside, that it's true" but both of those things in quotes are more logically contradictory than "true lies". Truth is universal. There can't be two contradictory "truths". And the second one misuses "know".
So calm down, people. Nobody here knows whether or not God exists.
We have beliefs, and we can argue them, and yes, we can use supporting facts (although some people choose to dismiss this option out of hand) but we can never have a definitive answer.
Anyone who says "God has to exist because... " is wrong.
Anyone who says "God [i]can't exist because... [insert anything at all here]" is wrong.
Any questions?
[/rant about fallacies, sorry if I was a bit harsh]

Ok, basically we believe homosexuality is a sin. Now, a very cliche-but-true quote also describes my viewpoint: "Hate the sin, not the sinner". Also, the Bible condemns hatred as well, so any Christian who hates homosexuals is herself no better than the person she so despises. The duty of Christians is to follow God's will and spread the gospel that others may see the light and repent of their sins. All have sinned, and one sin, no matter how minute it may be, outweighs every act of good we could possibly muster. God is an infinite Being and thus any sin against him is infinite in scale. However, Christ, the son of God, died a sinless creature as a sacrifice that our sins might be forgiven. For us to accept His sacrifice, we must accept Him and follow his commandments to the best of our abilities, and if we stumble we repent.
We try to convert everyone so that they, too, might be saved from the punishment we all deserve for our iniquities. Understand now? If not, just tell me and I'll explain more.
First off, let me thank you for putting forward your beliefs (and the beliefs of others) in a calm manner. I may not agree with them, but I respect a level-headed post (even if I can't always muster one myself :D )
Next, most of that can't be proven true or false, as they are matters of faith. However, one thing bothered me...
God is an infinite Being and thus any sin against him is infinite in scale.
How does that work? Since God is infinite (for the sake of discussion, I'll assume your premises are true), wouldn't any sin against him be imperceptible? Wouldn't it be rather like firing a missile at the sun, except even smaller? Perhaps flicking a mountain?

"Gay Marriage" is bad because it is borne of illiteracy. Marriage means the legal union of a man and a woman, and gay means happy. "Homosexual Marriage" would also be incorrect and stupid to say, because marriage, by definition, is not homosexual.
Ummm let's see here.
1. Yes, "gay" means "happy". It was hijacked by homosexuals quite a while ago, as a euphemism. Now, it is slang for homosexual, in addition to its previous meanings (which are hardly ever used anymore, because of "negative connotations". This is just proof that usage changes.
2. If it were clear-cut that marriage is between a man and a woman, we wouldn't be having this argument. It never says that in the law, so far as I can tell. If you're going by a dictionary, that's not exactly a good source for legal information. Keep in mind, the dictionary is just a book compiled by a bunch of people. The definitions were written by people. Most people, when they first think of marriage, think of a man and a woman. So, they might put that into the definition. That doesn't mean that it has force of law.
Also, in the dictionary I checked, there were multiple definitions (there have to be, because it doesn't just have one meaning) one of which was added to describe gay marriage. It's an additional meaning, not a change in meaning.
3. Civil Unions, as I've said before, I dunno, twice already? do not give the same rights as marriage. It's not just a semantic difference. Some of the most important rights that married couples might take for granted are denied to gays with civil unions. Hospital visitation, inheritence, the right to make medical decisions if the patient is unconcious, etc.

That said, there is nothing wrong with the union of a same-sex couple. However, marriage has always been defined as a man and a woman, and changing a definition that is thousands of years old for an uppity minority is stupid. It's a new thing, it should be defined as something new, e.g. a "Civil Union."
I believe I already covered these points...

...which supposedly refutes this is a bad comparison, because marriage was never defined as "the union of a man and a woman where the woman is the man's property," or "the union of a man and a woman of the same race." Those were side-effects of racism and chauvinism. As for divorce, that's not part of marriage, that's the opposite of marriage - the anti-marriage, if you will. Thus, gay marriage is bad simply because changing a definition that old is an obnoxious thing to do and is a shot in the balls to dictionaries everywhere.

By the way, I'm an agnostic, so my views on this have absolutely jack shit to do with religion.
Neither was the definition that it had to be a man and a woman. It was just implied, through years of tradition. Kind of like those examples you were refuting.

I'm glad to see you're not bringing God into this though.

ok I'd like to see someone give a valid reason for calling homosexuality wrong.
By valid I mean it shouldn't have the words god, the creator, moral, children, or gays are violent. Have fun.

"My God says it is wrong" is a perfectly valid moral reason for a believer to call it wrong. To him/her God and not reason is what tells what "good" and "bad" are after all. If his God would say that killing you firstborn child is good it *is* good for him. If his God would say that helping an old lady across the street is bad, it *is* bad. You as a non-believer can vehemently disagree with that moral system, but it does not invalidate the reasoning.

It does however not mean that his moral system must be enforced by a state, unless the state adopts his religion as the state religion. Which is why all the "God" arguments are valid, but completely irrelevant to the marriage discussion at hand ;)

Take the caps lock of[f] child.

You know God?

Can you ask him where I can find my keys?
Hehe, now you'remy hero!

Obviously that gay couple you described should never have had a kid. At least not if your description is accurate.

But don't assume gays raise their children any different than staright parents. Sure, there will always be the occational bad parents, but that goes for everyone, not just homo's.
Exactly. I keep waiting for "the other side" to realize this point. The see one bad pair of homosexual parents and think the whole shebang should be banned, whereas when straight parents hit their kids or live in homes that are outrageous health hazards or any of a number of things that should be unacceptible, it's "a shame" and "bad parents", not "ohmygod nobody should ever be allowed to have kids ever!!!".

If I ever decide to have a kid and raise him with a male partner, you can be damn sure the very last thing I'll ever do will be to try and undermine his masculinity. You can also be damn sure I would have more than one female rolemodel he could spend time with.
I'm sure there's some really shitty aspects to having homo parents, especially for teenagers. I'm also sure it's nothing responsible parents can't solve by being honest woth the child and provide 1 or more stable and life long role models of the opposite sex.
Yup. As long as they're good parents, it doesn't make a hell of a lot of a difference what their orientations are. As long as they realize the steps that they need to take to raise a balanced kid.

I agree parents should not try to affect their offspring's sexuality in any way. A parents only responsibility in that respect is to make sure the kid knows the basics of it and make sure they pratice safe sex.
Lesbians bitching about men or the opposite is shit. How can that possibly serve the best interest of the child? I thought parents were in it to help make the most well balanced human being they possibly could.
Not all parents are trying to make well-balanced human beings... some parents are just deranged. Anyway, it's way more common for straight parents to try to force their gay kid to be straight than for gay parents to force their kid to be gay. Think about it, why would they? They suffered because of their orientation, no responsible parent would want that for their kids as well unless they actually were gay.

The sarcasm is nice, i like you. :D

I fully believe in eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control, but not at the same time.

The oher reasons are just dumb. SO glad it's sarcasm, or I'd hafta go grab my carebear and cry in a fetal position under my bed.

- The High Preistess of the Free Land of Brakenwood

From The Kinsey Sicks. Sung to the tune of "Going to the Chapel"
http://www.kinseysicks.com

"Spring is here and my domestic partner is too
We’ll put a sign that says “just married” on our Subaru
We’ll say “I can’t” because we can’t say “I do”
At a wedding ceremony worth manure

You see we’re going to the chapel but we cannot get married
From Vermont to Minniaple no, we cannot get married
Gee I really love you but we cannot get married
Locked out of the Chapel of Love

Bells may ring, and the sun may shine
But 1,000 tax breaks, will never be mine
And when I hold you close half the states say it’s a crime
Don't confuse matrimony with Lamoure

Don’t ask Don’t tell Annapolis you want to get married
It’s rabbinical and Papalish to keep us from getting married
Gee I really love you but we cannot get married
Locked out of the Chapel of Love

Down in the Big Apple, no, we cannot get married
Clearly nowhere on the map will let us legally get married
Gee I really love you but we still cannot get married
Locked out of the Chapel of Love
Until people grapple with Love."

My wife/parter/life companion/insert term here played this as the opening to our "wedding" ceremony.

your God speaks Hebrew, not English.
w00t! ::bows::

Hmmm.... damn... now I have to make this a worthwhile post, so as to not waste space...How about,

Where exactly does your God say this? And how can you even prove that something written is the Word of God?

They are naive, and they overlook alot of issues. Almost everytime I have tried to point any of them out, even just for the sake for debate, they assume I'm a right wing bible thumper, even I hav'ent used god or religion as a basis for any of my posts. I think that this is an issue that really needs to be debated so we can work out the flaws of all positions.
Go ahead. If you make a well-reasoned post, people will (or at least I will) respond in kind.

And how can you even prove that something written is the Word of God?

That's what I love about faith. You don't have to prove anything. You just .....[dramatic drum roll and mood lighting]........KNOW. :p

"My God says it is wrong" is a perfectly valid moral reason for a believer to call it wrong. To him/her God and not reason is what tells what "good" and "bad" are after all. If his God would say that killing you firstborn child is good it *is* good for him. If his God would say that helping an old lady across the street is bad, it *is* bad. You as a non-believer can vehemently disagree with that moral system, but it does not invalidate the reasoning.

It does however not mean that his moral system must be enforced by a state, unless the state adopts his religion as the state religion. Which is why all the "God" arguments are valid, but completely irrelevant to the marriage discussion at hand ;)
Heh, nice post. I only have one tiny quibble... the "my god says so" argument is only valid if you can prove that said God exists and then further prove that said God said those things.
As it stands, it is a valid reason to believe that something is right or wrong, but not a valid argument. The statement "I believe X" cannot be disproven, as it is unknowable except to the person who states it. Therefore, we tend to accept it as fact, unless it's a politician :)
However, that is unimportant to the truth or falsehood of the underlying proposition.

That's what I love about faith. You don't have to prove anything. You just .....[dramatic drum roll and mood lighting]........KNOW. :p
No, you don't KNOW. You BELIEVE. And if that's enough for you, there's no problem with that the way I see it. However, since different people have different faiths, and they all KNOW, they would KNOW contradictory things, which is logically impossible. Therefore, you cannot KNOW based on faith. However, you can BELIEVE, and that, essentially is the point of faith. To believe without evidence.
Please see my post somewhere about the proper use of words like "know", because there are many common misconceptions.

How does that work? Since God is infinite (for the sake of discussion, I'll assume your premises are true), wouldn't any sin against him be imperceptible? Wouldn't it be rather like firing a missile at the sun, except even smaller? Perhaps flicking a mountain?


Well, to a perfectly holy and flawless being, the slightest imperfection/sin would contrast so incomprehensibly as to be intolerable. He cannot be in the presence of sin, therefore we must cast off our sins so that we might coexist with Him in the afterlife. Fortunately for us, it is possible to do so because of Christ's sacrifice.

However, since different people have different faiths, and they all KNOW, they would KNOW contradictory things, which is logically impossible.

Since when has logic ever been used hand in hand with blind faith? I am talking Knowing over Believing. Most folks who attend their places of worship and read their books now and then have faith through belief. What I'm making flippant commentary on are those who know, beyond belief and beyond doubt, that they are right. And yes, there are folks from every faith who know, beyond belief, that they are 110% right and everyone else is so very wrong. Illogical without a doubt, Spock would tear his ears out in a debate like that, but it's still out there. That's why they get dramatic drum rolls and smoke and lighting effects. They might even get echoy voice overs...oooooohhhh. :D

Well, to a perfectly holy and flawless being, the slightest imperfection/sin would contrast so incomprehensibly as to be intolerable. He cannot be in the presence of sin, therefore we must cast off our sins so that we might coexist with Him in the afterlife. Fortunately for us, it is possible to do so because of Christ's sacrifice.
Ok... I suppose that's a bit more reasonable... but still, couldn't God just decide whether we were "more good" or "more bad" and decide where we go, and if we go to heaven just strip us of our sins as He strips us of our worldly bodies?

Just wonderin'.

Ummm let's see here.
1. Yes, "gay" means "happy". It was hijacked by homosexuals quite a while ago, as a euphemism. Now, it is slang for homosexual, in addition to its previous meanings (which are hardly ever used anymore, because of "negative connotations". This is just proof that usage changes.
Which is exactly what I'm saying is stupid... the pointless alteration of words because people don't know what they mean.

2. If it were clear-cut that marriage is between a man and a woman, we wouldn't be having this argument. It never says that in the law, so far as I can tell. If you're going by a dictionary, that's not exactly a good source for legal information. Keep in mind, the dictionary is just a book compiled by a bunch of people. The definitions were written by people. Most people, when they first think of marriage, think of a man and a woman. So, they might put that into the definition. That doesn't mean that it has force of law.

Well, for one, I wasn't going by regular dictionary definitions, I was going by both current legal definitions and by the definitions used for the past couple thousand years, throughout which homosexuals existed, and throughout which homosexuals did not marry other homosexuals, because that is impossible.

Also, in the dictionary I checked, there were multiple definitions (there have to be, because it doesn't just have one meaning) one of which was added to describe gay marriage. It's an additional meaning, not a change in meaning.

Yes, some more liberal dictionaries are adding illegitimate definitions of marriage to the books. That doesn't make them law, as legal dictionaries are, which presently define marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

3. Civil Unions, as I've said before, I dunno, twice already? do not give the same rights as marriage. It's not just a semantic difference. Some of the most important rights that married couples might take for granted are denied to gays with civil unions. Hospital visitation, inheritence, the right to make medical decisions if the patient is unconcious, etc.

Wrong, some civil unions don't grant equal benefits. There are many proposals for how Civil Unions would work. I support them having the same effect as marriage.

Neither was the definition that it had to be a man and a woman. It was just implied, through years of tradition. Kind of like those examples you were refuting.

Wrong again, it's a legal definition.

I'm glad to see you're not bringing God into this though.

I couldn't give less of a shit whether homosexuals packing each other is a sin.

Since when has logic ever been used hand in hand with blind faith? I am talking Knowing over Believing. Most folks who attend their places of worship and read their books now and then have faith through belief. What I'm making flippant commentary on are those who know, beyond belief and beyond doubt, that they are right. And yes, there are folks from every faith who know, beyond belief, that they are 110% right and everyone else is so very wrong. Illogical without a doubt, Spock would tear his ears out in a debate like that, but it's still out there. That's why they get dramatic drum rolls and smoke and lighting effects. They might even get echoy voice overs...oooooohhhh. :D
That's not what I'm talking about... their level of certainty is irrelevant. No matter how much they think they "KNOW", it doesn't change the fact that they don't KNOW. If someone tells you "I know 110% that God exists" then they are wrong. Not necessarily about God, but about the fact that they KNOW.
I know that the person who makes this claim might not care about logic at all, or at least might consider it irrelevant to the issue of faith. However, whether you accept it or not, logic is there. Even though they claim to "KNOW", doesn't mean that they do, EVEN IF THE CLAIM THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT IS ACTUALLY TRUE.

Ok... I suppose that's a bit more reasonable... but still, couldn't God just decide whether we were "more good" or "more bad" and decide where we go, and if we go to heaven just strip us of our sins as He strips us of our worldly bodies?

Just wonderin'.



Perhaps, but one aspect of holiness is justice and if we just got away with our wickedness, then it wouldn't be very just. But his mercy and grace is available to all those who will accept it, even the gravest of sinners:



1 Timothy 1:12-17 12And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord who has enabled me, because He counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry, 13although I was formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an insolent man; but I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly in unbelief. 14And the grace of our Lord was exceedingly abundant, with faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. 15This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief. 16However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life. 17Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, to God who alone is wise,[a] be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.

Which is exactly what I'm saying is stupid... the pointless alteration of words because people don't know what they mean.
It's called "language". Language evolves, as do the meanings of words. Even without the "gay movement". Words go in and out of fashion. Meanings change all by themselves, even without a concerted effort. No matter how much you dislike meanings changing, that change is inevitable, like the shape of a sand dune.

Well, for one, I wasn't going by regular dictionary definitions, I was going by both current legal definitions and by the definitions used for the past couple thousand years, throughout which homosexuals existed, and throughout which homosexuals did not marry other homosexuals, because that is impossible.
What legal code are you talking about? Certainly not in the US. If that were the legal definition in the US, then why would there be a bill on the House floor attempting to make and insert that very same definition?
And since it's not the legal definition in the US, you can't make the argument that it's a universal legal definition, in which case the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.

Yes, some more liberal dictionaries are adding illegitimate definitions of marriage to the books. That doesn't make them law, as legal dictionaries are, which presently define marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
Which legal dictionary? As I said, it's not defined by law as that.
My "liberal dictionary" was http://www.dictionary.com
Oh yeah, real liberal :-\

Wrong, some civil unions don't grant equal benefits. There are many proposals for how Civil Unions would work. I support them having the same effect as marriage.
Ok. I would accept that. But currently, it is not the case, at very least not universal. I'm not aware of any civil unions that are equivolent to marriage, but, seeing as I'm not omniscient, that doesn't mean they don't exist. I am, however, distinctly aware of many civil unions in which the rights are not equivolent.

Wrong again, it's a legal definition.

See above. Twice.


I couldn't give less of a shit whether homosexuals packing each other is a sin.
Ok...... then....... what's your argument? A personal belief that marriage is between one man and one woman? Because that's a personal belief, not a universal legal definition.

Ok... I suppose that's a bit more reasonable... but still, couldn't God just decide whether we were "more good" or "more bad" and decide where we go, and if we go to heaven just strip us of our sins as He strips us of our worldly bodies?

Just wonderin'. That's where the idea of Purgatory comes in.

Wrong again, it's a legal definition.




Legal definitions are curious things. For example, under applicable law, at one time Australian aboriginals were for all intents and purposes regarded as livestock. So much for legal definitions.

Perhaps, but one aspect of holiness is justice and if we just got away with our wickedness, then it wouldn't be very just. But his mercy and grace is available to all those who will accept it, even the gravest of sinners:
Is it "justice" to make someone burn in hell for all eternity because they were forced to work on the Sabbath to feed their family, even if they were otherwise exemplary human beings and never hurt anyone?



1 Timothy 1:12-17 12And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord who has enabled me, because He counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry, 13although I was formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an insolent man; but I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly in unbelief. 14And the grace of our Lord was exceedingly abundant, with faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. 15This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief. 16However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life. 17Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, to God who alone is wise,[a] be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.
Yes, I am aware of the fact that according to the Bible all is forgiven if you accept the Grace of God and the sacrifice of Jesus. I also think this is a bit unjust, though: should not that gift exist, whether or not it is accepted? If Jesus made a big enough sacrifice to pay for all human sin from now until Doomsday, why exclude those who are either unaware of the existance of Christianity or are skeptics? I know that it isn't necessarily the "way things work", but the way I see it it isn't much of a gift if there are strings attached.

Heh, nice post. I only have one tiny quibble... the "my god says so" argument is only valid if you can prove that said God exists and then further prove that said God said those things.
As it stands, it is a valid reason to believe that something is right or wrong, but not a valid argument.

Nope - a moral system does not need to be based on verifiable facts and reasoning. Viewed objectively it can be argued to be better, since it can justify itself and allows comparision with other fact and logicbased systems - but it is not a necessary requirement.
The Bible offers a set of moral and ethical commandments and guidelines. Most of those morals are not backed up by reasoning, and some can be shown to be logically inconsistent - but it still *is* a valid moral system. An inferior one in my personal opinion, but several million people seem to disagree.

someone said that the Pope is infallible. he is only so when speaking on faith and morals. And only sometimes. So When that pope said that, he had made a mistake.

Yes, I am aware of the fact that according to the Bible all is forgiven if you accept the Grace of God and the sacrifice of Jesus. I also think this is a bit unjust, though: should not that gift exist, whether or not it is accepted? If Jesus made a big enough sacrifice to pay for all human sin from now until Doomsday, why exclude those who are either unaware of the existance of Christianity or are skeptics? I know that it isn't necessarily the "way things work", but the way I see it it isn't much of a gift if there are strings attached.



My personal belief is that God, being the epitome of mercy and love, will show lenience towards those who have never heard of Christ. I can't say much for skeptics though, as they have heard it.

My personal belief is that God, being the epitome of mercy and love, will show lenience towards those who have never heard of Christ. I can't say much for skeptics though, as they have heard it.

According to Leviticus someone who sins without knowing it is still guilty though... so arguably ignorance is not an excuse.

Is it "justice" to make someone burn in hell for all eternity because they were forced to work on the Sabbath to feed their family, even if they were otherwise exemplary human beings and never hurt anyone?


It depends really: If one was truly devout, would they not have chosen to forego food for a day in order to keep the commandments? Also, philanthropy was basically commanded by God so they could have just had their neighbors lend them some food for the day. It boils down to whether one values the temporal things (the physical existence of your family and yourself) over the enternal. In addition to that, God only stated (to my knowledge) that death was the punishment. Eternal hellfire is mainly used for sinners who reject Christ.

It's called "language". Language evolves, as do the meanings of words. Even without the "gay movement". Words go in and out of fashion. Meanings change all by themselves, even without a concerted effort. No matter how much you dislike meanings changing, that change is inevitable, like the shape of a sand dune.
Look, it's not like you're going to convince me that changing ancient words for a minority isn't ridiculous and obnoxious, so give up on that point.

What legal code are you talking about? Certainly not in the US. If that were the legal definition in the US, then why would there be a bill on the House floor attempting to make and insert that very same definition?
And since it's not the legal definition in the US, you can't make the argument that it's a universal legal definition, in which case the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.
I certainly am talking about the U.S. Ever heard of the Defense of Marriage Act? Your buddy Clinton - assuming you're a fan - passed it in '96. The bill is on the house floor because the super-liberals want to overturn that law and modify the definition to meet the demands of a portion of their voters. And since it is a legal definition in the U.S., and has been a legal definition in many other places (though not everywhere), my house of cards remains intact.
Which legal dictionary? As I said, it's not defined by law as that.
My "liberal dictionary" was http://www.dictionary.com
Oh yeah, real liberal :-\
Dictionary.com isn't a legal dictionary. Here's an online legal dictionary (http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/), and here's another (http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=1217&bold=||||), and another (http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m087.htm). Even this one (http://www.duhaime.org/dictionary/dict-m.aspx), which is a more universally applicable definition, points out that most countries do not include same-sex marriage in as a part of the definition.

Ok...... then....... what's your argument? A personal belief that marriage is between one man and one woman? Because that's a personal belief, not a universal legal definition.

No, not a personal belief, rather a nearly global legal definition. And whether it's been modified in some countries makes no difference to me, the definition still should not be changed here. New word, new definitions. Homosexuals do not have less rights than we do, they can marry a person of the opposite sex whenever they want to, just like we can, so I don't see what's wrong with making a new definition for this new concept.

According to Leviticus someone who sins without knowing it is still guilty though... so arguably ignorance is not an excuse.


Aye, but Christ's death abolished the old law....which, by the way, was only applicable to Jews. Gentiles in the pre-Christ era were under a different moral standard that isn't described that much, if at all, in the Old Testament.

I view homosexuality as a chosen behavior. Eventhough there has in the recent past been much controvery about a possible genetic component,whether true or not, I still believe there are behavior choices involved.

Behavior can be learned. If exposed to an evironment where a particular behavior is the norm the likelihood that the behavior will be emulated is increased. This is not to state that it will be emulated but that a greater chance of it occurring is to be expected.
So why not just ban homosexuality outright?

So just because you got a woody in the lockerroom you decide that you dont like women anymore, that the anus is a better alternative? If you were a hermaphrodite I might understand the confusion. But if your physiologically normal then you must have some psychological issues because the anus is not exactly the choice place to store foreign objects.
Why do conservatives like you always turn discussions about gay marriage into rants about the evils/merits of anal sex? It's not the legal issue at hand.

I don't like anal sex, but I see no reason for the law to be involved there.

Do you really need to resort to insults to convey your message? That's usually a sign of desperation.
Why do you highlight this post yet, you let off Ouachitasas' far more flaming and insulting post. Oh wait, he's on your side. Absolute party loyalty is a must, right? I am not so limited because I am not a lemming. See the bottom end of this post.

I can see you getting frustrated, but I'll have to disagree with point #2.
How can the government be religiously neutral if you put God into it?

Of course the pro-gay rights side is frustrated when we hear nothing but stupid arguments from mean-spirited, evil pseudo-theocrats.

Much for the same reason Democrats and Republicans try to implement their policies when in office: Because they believe in what they are doing. Which is the same reason those who don't believe in God wish to remove God from government. You don't believe in Him and want him out. I do believe in Him and want him in.
So how do you explain the people who believe in God, but want to keep him in church and out of government?

The differences between ideology and religion is that ideology can be argued about objectively. Religion is subjective.

As much as that sounds like a conspiracy theory, it is suprisingly accurate.
It's still a conspiracy theory!

*gasp* The very thought that people would dare suggest that you will somehow be responsible for your sins when the afterlife comes!
So you actually think that everyone should be forced to be Christian?

Besides, won't God hold them responsible for your sins when the afterlife comes, regardless of what the government does on earth?

Jehovah/Yahweh, the interpretation that is so obvious that you would have a rough time disagreeing with it, and yes....there has to be a God. That which is physical cannot generate spontaneously.
Well, that's not certainly true, but that's a matter for theoretical physics. Now, why should we think that this "higher being" is against gay marriage? If they are, why should the government ban it?

See, here's why I FUCKING HATE EVERY SINGLE FUCKING CHRISTIAN.
Where do you live? If you think like this you're a bigot and just as bad as the Neo-Regolias of this world.

Aye, but Christ's death abolished the old law....which, by the way, was only applicable to Jews. Gentiles in the pre-Christ era were under a different moral standard that isn't described that much, if at all, in the Old Testament.

But isn't a phrase in the same book of Leviticus the main reason for most Christians to be against homosexuality and gay marriage ?

But isn't a phrase in the same book of Leviticus the main reason for most Christians to be against homosexuality and gay marriage ?


That can be argued, but homosexuality is also frowned upon in Romans and 1 Corinthians (translation issues aside).

Where do you live? If you think like this you're a bigot and just as bad as the Neo-Regolias of this world.


Umm...I am no bigot. I truly have compassion for homosexuals, so quit equating me with them.

No, not a personal belief, rather a nearly global legal definition. And whether it's been modified in some countries makes no difference to me, the definition still should not be changed here. New word, new definitions. Homosexuals do not have less rights than we do, they can marry a person of the opposite sex whenever they want to, just like we can, so I don't see what's wrong with making a new definition for this new concept.

Because there would be no point of giving it a different name. It would be registered in the same way, performed by the same civil servant, would convey the same legal rights etc. etc. Having to change every form or document that says "marriage" to say "marriage/union (or whatever)", as well as all the signs at amusement parks etc. that give discounts to married couples now just to make a distinction between the two unions is silly and wastefull.

Well, that's not certainly true, but that's a matter for theoretical physics. Now, why should we think that this "higher being" is against gay marriage? If they are, why should the government ban it?



If you're referring to the matter that supposedly generates within the vacuum, you must remember that the "vacuum" of space is not a true vacuum. It contains energy in notable amounts. Also, scientists do not even know if the matter exists or is merely conceptual and imaginary. It seems to phase in and out of states observable presence (saying it's present is being a bit generous) and never stays within reality.

Because there would be no point of giving it a different name. It would be registered in the same way, performed by the same civil servant, would convey the same legal rights etc. etc. Having to change every form or document that says "marriage" to say "marriage/union (or whatever)", as well as all the signs at amusement parks etc. that give discounts to married couples now just to make a distinction between the two unions is silly and wastefull.

Technically, there are no legally backed documents that refer to the union of a homosexual couple as "marriage," because that's illegal. So that wouldn't be required at all.

Technically, there are no legally backed documents that refer to the union of a homosexual couple as "marriage," because that's illegal. So that wouldn't be required at all.

Thats not my point. What I meant to say is that there are hundreds of legal forms and documents that contain the word "marriage". If you make "gay marriage" legal and give it the same legal status, but call it "union" instead you would have to change all those documents to say marriage/union.

In other words just redefining marraige so it encompasses both gay and hetereosexual marriage saves a lot of (unneccesary) work.

God refers to homosexuality as an abomination.
But the Bible is much more against divorce. Why don't you spend your energies lobbying to ban that?

We are God's creation, and therefore subject to God's will. Common sense would dictate that you DON'T disobey the will of an omnipotent Being. I believe it is YOU who are incapable of making sense.
I thought God gave us free will? God's will only applies to people who are Christians. I doubt that you, or almost any other Christian, could claim to follow every Biblical lesson to the letter. Most Christians are á la carte Christians.

In a sense, I'm saying contemporary research points in that direction. When you have no explanation that works other than one, you take the one that works. No explanations have shown how a universe could have arisen from nothingness. A metaphysical explanation, however, does.
None of which proves the Christian God. Higher beings, perhaps, but that does not automatically mean the Christian god.

Hindu has the history, but not the many prophecies-come-true or the miracles which were recorded by unbiased people.
Yeah, the Christian/Jew/Muslim God has all those miracles recorded by the good unbiased people who wrote the Bible!

I don't want to get into a theological debate. Bottom line is, there is no reason for the government to be involved with God. Even if he exists.

Because, as I stated earlier, it never WILL have an explanation, because any explanation would lie outside the material dimension and science only cover the material dimension. Thus, the explanation would not be scientific but philosophical.
So we return to what I said in the first place. Religion is subjective.

Something else I've come to notice:
Many religious people want the government to prohibit things like gay-marriages because they believe their bible tells them to. But if I understand anything about the common religions, it's that God itself will judge us.
If it is Gods duty to judge us, who are we to play God and do it for him?

I agree. Why don't we just leave it for God to judge?

And what a wonderful way to describe sin: "Personal freedom". Dressing the concept up in a glorious description does not detract from its true reality. Of course, wouldn't it be nice and convenient if I could label murder "A beautiful and wonderful thing"?

Oh wonderful. Equating homosexuality to murder. Whenever this comes up in one of these threads, the poster (in this case, you) loses all credibility.

Besides, "sin" is just a word. It may be as meaningless as the descriptions you detract.

Oh wonderful. Equating homosexuality to murder. Whenever this comes up in one of these threads, the poster (in this case, you) loses all credibility.

Besides, "sin" is just a word. It may be as meaningless as the descriptions you detract.


Actually, your asinine, inflammatory attitude erased all credibility you had to begin with. When you can learn to post without this obviously militant temperament, then I'll actually lend an ear.

Bottom line is, there is no reason for the government to be involved with God. Sorry, but there is: the government is (supposed to be) made up of the people - that includes all the peoples' beliefs. So if the people want gay marriage to be allowed/disallowed, then it has to be done. In democracy, anyway.

Sorry, but there is: the government is (supposed to be) made up of the people - that includes all the peoples' beliefs. So if the people want gay marriage to be allowed/disallowed, then it has to be done. In democracy, anyway.

Detail 1: In a pure democracy 51% of the people wanting something would indeed be law, even if 49% would disagree. Fortunately most democratic countries are not pure democracies and also take the wishes of minorities into account.

Detail 2: there are many different religions and flavours within religions in the USA. The number of followers each one has differs from year to year, and what is the religion of choice for 40% of the population now can be forgotten in 50 years. Between them those religions often disagree on several notable points, and sometimes are not even internally consistent.
Trying to make laws that take all of that into account is practically impossible - so instead the USA has a constitution.

Umm...I am no bigot. I truly have compassion for homosexuals, so quit equating me with them.
lol, you have compassion for them, but you want to legislate them out of existence?

If you're referring to the matter that supposedly generates within the vacuum, you must remember that the "vacuum" of space is not a true vacuum. It contains energy in notable amounts. Also, scientists do not even know if the matter exists or is merely conceptual and imaginary. It seems to phase in and out of states observable presence (saying it's present is being a bit generous) and never stays within reality.
Now, why should we think that this "higher being" is against gay marriage? If they are, why should the government ban it?

Just thinking of gay people makes me wretch and gag in horror.
Then don't think about them. Don't come into threads with "gay" in the title!

Because considering the short time that gays have been out of the closet in this country you are pushing for a lot and in the process polarizing people against your movement.
How are marriage rights "a lot"?

*sigh* When will you get this through your head? WE...DO...NOT....HATE....ANYONE!!!!
These are your words, but your (speaking to your lobby collectively) actions say otherwise. There seems to be a significant conservative movement out there that is bent on making life hell for gays.

It's kind of like Lenin. He wanted to make the workers suffer, to increase their appetite for revolution. The aforementioned Conservatives want to make gays suffer to increase their appetite for salvation.

Nope - a moral system does not need to be based on verifiable facts and reasoning. Viewed objectively it can be argued to be better, since it can justify itself and allows comparision with other fact and logicbased systems - but it is not a necessary requirement.
The Bible offers a set of moral and ethical commandments and guidelines. Most of those morals are not backed up by reasoning, and some can be shown to be logically inconsistent - but it still *is* a valid moral system. An inferior one in my personal opinion, but several million people seem to disagree.
Ummm.... yeah... that's kinda what I said. It's not a valid argument... as in it can't "prove" that such-and-such is wrong... but it is a valid reason to believe something, e.g. a moral code.
The Bible is enough justification for a Christian to follow the Christian moral code. It is not, however, enough justification for a sound argument to say that this certain moral code is the word of God.

My personal belief is that God, being the epitome of mercy and love, will show lenience towards those who have never heard of Christ. I can't say much for skeptics though, as they have heard it.
See, here we are back at personal belief. Some people think that God would send them all to Hell to burn for eternity, and even think that this is right. At that point it's open to interpretation. If every individual Christian can have their own views on God's standards, then God's standards aren't known, and, IMHO, people should stop saying that their version the the absolute and undeniable truth.

I know that's not what you were trying to do, just making a point.

It depends really: If one was truly devout, would they not have chosen to forego food for a day in order to keep the commandments? Also, philanthropy was basically commanded by God so they could have just had their neighbors lend them some food for the day. It boils down to whether one values the temporal things (the physical existence of your family and yourself) over the enternal. In addition to that, God only stated (to my knowledge) that death was the punishment. Eternal hellfire is mainly used for sinners who reject Christ.
What if they were surrounded by bad Christians, who did not follow the Commandments, and who were not charitable?
And again, many people would say that sin = eternal hellfire.
How did we get to this on a topic about gay marriage again?

Being black and being female do not violate any biblical teachings, whereas homosexuality (in practice that is) does. Try to find a better comparison.

Well the bible does not specifically prohibit against being black, it does say that followers of the true god should never ever sit down with an Egyptian or certain other ethnic groups. Jesus himself wasn't too keen on Gentiles, and furthermore if we are to follow the Bible's laws on marriage the country should also ban marriage between Jews and Gentiles. Even Israel, the closest thing to a Jewish country, doesn't do this. Oh and be sure all brides go through ritual immersion before all weddings whatsoever.

One can't apply the marital deas of the Ancient Middle East to today....

Look, it's not like you're going to convince me that changing ancient words for a minority isn't ridiculous and obnoxious, so give up on that point.
Yay for closed minds!


I certainly am talking about the U.S. Ever heard of the Defense of Marriage Act? Your buddy Clinton - assuming you're a fan - passed it in '96. The bill is on the house floor because the super-liberals want to overturn that law and modify the definition to meet the demands of a portion of their voters. And since it is a legal definition in the U.S., and has been a legal definition in many other places (though not everywhere), my house of cards remains intact.
It is not a federal definition... that's what the Marriage Protection Act is trying to change. Currently, it's up to the states whether or not to grant gay marriage. That means that it's not a universal definition. I was wrong about DOMA though... sorry about that. Doesn't change the fact that it's not a universal legal definition though.

Dictionary.com isn't a legal dictionary. Here's an online legal dictionary (http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/), and here's another (http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=1217&bold=||||), and another (http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m087.htm). Even this one (http://www.duhaime.org/dictionary/dict-m.aspx), which is a more universally applicable definition, points out that most countries do not include same-sex marriage in as a part of the definition.
"Most countries". Ok, so how does that make it universal, if it's "most countries"? All change has to start somewhere. In this case, not here, as other countries that you'd probably find disgustingly liberal such as the Netherlands have already legalized gay unions (in Holland, civil and religious marriages are totally separate, with the civil marriage granting all of the legal rights, so that churches can disallow gay marriage if they want).

No, not a personal belief, rather a nearly global legal definition. And whether it's been modified in some countries makes no difference to me, the definition still should not be changed here. New word, new definitions. Homosexuals do not have less rights than we do, they can marry a person of the opposite sex whenever they want to, just like we can, so I don't see what's wrong with making a new definition for this new concept.
Ok, if you make a civil union type thing with the fully rights and privileges of marriage then I might agree with you. For most people it isn't an issue of the word, it's an issue of the rights. However, right now civil unions have maybe a quarter of the rights of a marriage. Right now, they do not have equal rights. To say that they have the right to marry the opposite sex just like everyone else is a flawed argument. Consider this fairly analogous one to show why we "don't need separation of church and state": "Well, Muslims have the right to follow Christianity just like Christians have the right to follow Christianity, so I really don't get what they're all hot and bothered about... I mean really! Christianity has been around for thousands of years, and now they want to practice Islam? Rediculous!" [/sarcasm]. It's not an equal right if they have to do exactly what you do.
Other than that last piece, I thought you had a very good argument, though.

If you're referring to the matter that supposedly generates within the vacuum, you must remember that the "vacuum" of space is not a true vacuum. It contains energy in notable amounts. Also, scientists do not even know if the matter exists or is merely conceptual and imaginary. It seems to phase in and out of states observable presence (saying it's present is being a bit generous) and never stays within reality.
I'm an agnostic, so please don't take this personally, but this sounds rather like God... well, if you can so easily believe in God... why not this?

Technically, there are no legally backed documents that refer to the union of a homosexual couple as "marriage," because that's illegal. So that wouldn't be required at all.
I live in Massachusetts. I have seen a gay wedding ceremony, and signed as a witness. Yes, it is a Marriage, in Massachusetts. The Constitutional Amendment trying to get it banned was a flop: passed the House with flying colors, and then didn't even get a simple majority in the Senate.

For the record, I tend to stay away from actively speaking in this sort of thread, because I know that it will inevitably end up attracting all manner of views that make my brain spasm in agony. But damnit, I can not abide bigotry. I'm sort of bigoted against bigots, you see. And before anybody asks, I myself am bisexual and female.

First off... "Faggot" is such a hilarious name for gays (I notice only gay men get this name thrown at them, too)--it means a bundle of sticks. Kindling, I think. "You're a bundle of sticks! *spit*" "...'kay?" Laughable and childish, like a five-year-old calling somebody a dink and not knowing what it means. Same goes for queer. 'Strange?' So what?

Second: Marriages all but stopped being absolutely religious ceremonies a while ago. I am not saying nobody cares about religious requirements or that God has no say in marriages (If you believe in any sort of God, anyway). I am simply saying that marriage is no longer solely under the jurisdiction of the church.

I also laughed aloud at the person who said "homosexual people are still able to marry anybody of the opposite sex". Sure. Never mind that at least a few of the homosexuals I know find the idea just as disturbing as heteros find gay marriage. If that's your idea of equality, you need a swift kick to the head and probably to go back to Kindergarten where they teach you to share and be nice to people.

I also have a question: Why are gays--again, I've only noticed gay men get this sort of treatment, if not, please provide an example? I've been wrong before and I wholly acknowledge that it will probably happen again--constantly associated with monsters like rapists and child molesters? When did liking the guy next door's ass turn into making a guy want to drag somebody into a back alley and do things to them with a broken bottle? Hell, straight men and women indulge in anal sex too, nobody's turning around and immediately accusing those people of being rapists or child molesters. Or if they are, the accusers tend to be laughed at. They might be looked at funny, but they're still not getting the same treatment as gays.

The more I think about it, the more likely I am to end up with another woman, and the idea that were I to actually fall for them seriously enough to consider marriage--or civil union, whatever--and be denied makes me ill. I wouldn't mind having to move to another state to manage it, nor having it called something other than marriage, provided we both are given the same rights--all the same rights--as a married straight couple.

Failing that, I suppose there's always polygamy.

"Gay Marriage" is bad because it is borne of illiteracy. Marriage means the legal union of a man and a woman, and gay means happy. "Homosexual Marriage" would also be incorrect and stupid to say, because marriage, by definition, is not homosexual. That said, there is nothing wrong with the union of a same-sex couple. However, marriage has always been defined as a man and a woman, and changing a definition that is thousands of years old for an uppity minority is stupid. It's a new thing, it should be defined as something new, e.g. a "Civil Union."

Thus, gay marriage is bad simply because changing a definition that old is an obnoxious thing to do and is a shot in the balls to dictionaries everywhere.

By the way, I'm an agnostic, so my views on this have absolutely jack shit to do with religion.
Well, changing just one definition shouldn't be so hard. In 1995 the government decided to change the spelling rules of the Dutch language here in the Netherlands. A big campaign was held and dictionaries were reprinted, including the new and "improved" (read: worse) spellings of thousands of words. Of course it would be a bit much trouble for just one definition, but we're not asking for that. Just change the law, that'll do the trick.

PS - I pulled this definition off the net:

"WordNet (r) 2.0 (August 2003)"
marriage
n 1: the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for
life (or until divorce); "a long and happy marriage";
"God bless this union" [syn: matrimony, union,
spousal relationship, wedlock]
2: two people who are married to each other; "his second
marriage was happier than the first"; "a married couple
without love" [syn: married couple, man and wife]
3: the act of marrying; the nuptial ceremony; "their marriage
was conducted in the chapel" [syn: wedding, marriage
ceremony]
4: a close and intimate union; "the marriage of music and
dance"; "a marriage of ideas"

No change needed there! ;)

Look, it's not like you're going to convince me that changing ancient words for a minority isn't ridiculous and obnoxious, so give up on that point.

First of all, to make that argument, you have to completely ignore the fact that more than one ancient civilization seems to have recognized same sex unions. The Judeo-Christian tradition is hardly the only one.

Secondly, it has nothing to do with ridiculous and obnoxious. The meanings of words change over time. This is the way language works. If you don't like it, kindly check yourself out of society.

I certainly am talking about the U.S. Ever heard of the Defense of Marriage Act? Your buddy Clinton - assuming you're a fan - passed it in '96. The bill is on the house floor because the super-liberals want to overturn that law and modify the definition to meet the demands of a portion of their voters. And since it is a legal definition in the U.S., and has been a legal definition in many other places (though not everywhere), my house of cards remains intact.

Wow, you are truly full of shit. In truth, any conservative would want to overthrow that law as well. Why? Because it is clear violation of the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution of the United States.

Meanwhile, that is a new law - so your argument that it has been legal definition for a long time is null and void. Even the states that have declared it such have done so relatively recently.

Homosexuals do not have less rights than we do, they can marry a person of the opposite sex whenever they want to, just like we can, so I don't see what's wrong with making a new definition for this new concept.

That's a beautiful argument - except for one thing. Marriages are not granted to individuals, at least not last time I checked. Marriages are granted to couples. And, as it stands, heterosexual couples can obtain a marriage license, but homosexual couples cannot. Since it is the couple that matters in this case, rather than the individual - who cannot obtain a marriage license without being part of a couple, homosexual couples are clearly being discriminated against.

Because there would be no point of giving it a different name. It would be registered in the same way, performed by the same civil servant, would convey the same legal rights etc. etc. Having to change every form or document that says "marriage" to say "marriage/union (or whatever)", as well as all the signs at amusement parks etc. that give discounts to married couples now just to make a distinction between the two unions is silly and wastefull.

...and unconstitutional.

Unless, of course, separate schools for blacks and whites was ok?

Sorry, but there is: the government is (supposed to be) made up of the people - that includes all the peoples' beliefs. So if the people want gay marriage to be allowed/disallowed, then it has to be done. In democracy, anyway.

The wonderful thing is that the US isn't a democracy. It is a representative republic that operates under a Constitution which places restrictions on what the majority can and cannot do. Because of that, God has no place in the goverment.

First off, let me thank you for putting forward your beliefs (and the beliefs of others) in a calm manner. I may not agree with them, but I respect a level-headed post (even if I can't always muster one myself :D )
Next, most of that can't be proven true or false, as they are matters of faith. However, one thing bothered me...

Well, here is one problem, the original poster (who you replied to), fails to take into account the trinity, and the fact that there are three beings in one god, and Jesus, by extension of the Trinity is actually one part of god (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit/Ghost) - so in actual fact, he send part of himself to earth, to get killed and sacrificed back to himself so that he could forgive the world.

Thats like a father having a son, and kills him as a sacrifice to himself so that he can forgive a neighbour who crapped on his lawn - it makes no logical sense what so ever.

To quote the bible as the word of god is even more rediculous; the whole book was written by men, and was only up until 3000 years ago, actually referred to as the word of god; prior to that, it was merely seen as the thoughts, ideas and stories of struggle of the Israelites - nothing more.

Regarding the new testament, I think people need to realise Jesus said NOTHING about homosexuality or same sex marriage - don't confuse the mysogynous rantings of Paul or Peter for what Jesus was trying to say - it was a pretty basic message that has been lose and confused by all the bible scollars trying to justify their existance in the world, "respect others and thank god" - pretty basic, too bad most Christians can't seem to follow that message, with their anti-gay rantings, misquoting of bibles and pure-hate they spew at rallies and protests.

Because you were screwed up in the head!



Hey, look at me I'm GAY!!!, And I need attention!!!




So just because you got a woody in the lockerroom you decide that you dont like women anymore, that the anus is a better alternative? If you were a hermaphrodite I might understand the confusion. But if your physiologically normal then you must have some psychological issues because the anus is not exactly the choice place to store foreign objects.




Extra! Extra! Dingbats and flying squirrels now to be considered the same species! More inside!




And all this time I thought you spoke for tho whole gay community.



Because the anus is nasty, and I bet the lesbians know a little more about monogomy.




No you have made it everyones business.



Being gay means that something went wrong in your development and somehow you got fixated on the wrong sex. Mabye a female did something really mean to you. Or you hated mommy or daddy or one of them or both loved you too much. Whatever, point is something went wrong.



Basically, yes, because I dont run around proclaiming my straightness because that makes a statement as to my sexuality which is nobody elses business. My opening line to the world is not, "I have sex with women, that is who I am and it defines me as a person", sounds a little shallow now does'nt it?



As I said above.



So you were a gay child? I dont think I've ever met a gay child. Or a straight child for that matter. And what is the difference between gay and straight again?

We have our identities figured out, and being gay just happens to be a very large part of that identity.


Gee I guess your running of of things to say because now all you're doing is resorting to your ignorant, unfounded insults you can't wait to throw at me. I'm not even going to bother responding individually to every stupid thing you said because I can see that no matter how many times I tear what you have to say apart you will always manage to find some immature, illogical thing to say in response just so that you can keep hating us for no reason other than your obvious disgust in how we happen to express our love for one another. And quite frankly, I think the ideas of heterosexual sex and lesbian sex is rather disgusting, but I don't hate them because of it..I just don't waste my time thinking about it!

Well, here is one problem, the original poster (who you replied to), fails to take into account the trinity, and the fact that there are three beings in one god, and Jesus, by extension of the Trinity is actually one part of god (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit/Ghost) - so in actual fact, he send part of himself to earth, to get killed and sacrificed back to himself so that he could forgive the world.

Thats like a father having a son, and kills him as a sacrifice to himself so that he can forgive a neighbour who crapped on his lawn - it makes no logical sense what so ever.

To quote the bible as the word of god is even more rediculous; the whole book was written by men, and was only up until 3000 years ago, actually referred to as the word of god; prior to that, it was merely seen as the thoughts, ideas and stories of struggle of the Israelites - nothing more.

Regarding the new testament, I think people need to realise Jesus said NOTHING about homosexuality or same sex marriage - don't confuse the mysogynous rantings of Paul or Peter for what Jesus was trying to say - it was a pretty basic message that has been lose and confused by all the bible scollars trying to justify their existance in the world, "respect others and thank god" - pretty basic, too bad most Christians can't seem to follow that message, with their anti-gay rantings, misquoting of bibles and pure-hate they spew at rallies and protests.


Jesus gave authority to Paul and Peter before returning to heaven, as did the Holy Spirit. You cannot reject them without rejecting Christ :p

Well the bible does not specifically prohibit against being black, it does say that followers of the true god should never ever sit down with an Egyptian or certain other ethnic groups. Jesus himself wasn't too keen on Gentiles, and furthermore if we are to follow the Bible's laws on marriage the country should also ban marriage between Jews and Gentiles. Even Israel, the closest thing to a Jewish country, doesn't do this. Oh and be sure all brides go through ritual immersion before all weddings whatsoever.

One can't apply the marital deas of the Ancient Middle East to today....


No, no and no.

What if they were surrounded by bad Christians, who did not follow the Commandments, and who were not charitable?
And again, many people would say that sin = eternal hellfire.
How did we get to this on a topic about gay marriage again?


Well, first off they weren't Christians back in the Old Testament, just Jews. Also, I'm sure one day of fasting would not kill you and, even if it did, you would at least not go to hell because you didn't violate God's commandment.

lol, you have compassion for them, but you want to legislate them out of existence?


Legislate them out of existence? Where did you get that absurd idea from? I just don't want our government to legalize/endorse sin more than it already has!

Now, why should we think that this "higher being" is against gay marriage? If they are, why should the government ban it?


This isn't really relevant to the thing you quoted me saying (I guess you messed up during the copy/paste so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) but in Bible on at least 3 occasions men, inspired by God, condemned homosexuality. Now, if a perfect supreme being tells you not to do something, why on earth would you do it?

Jesus gave authority to Paul and Peter before returning to heaven, as did the Holy Spirit. You cannot reject them without rejecting Christ :p

You can easily reject them without rejecting Christ. How? Easy.

I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and died on the cross to forgivemy sins. However, I do not believe that one guy who followed him around for a while and one guy who changed his mind could speak for him. Easy as that

This isn't really relevant to the thing you quoted me saying (I guess you messed up during the copy/paste so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) but in Bible on at least 3 occasions men, inspired by God, condemned homosexuality. Now, if a perfect supreme being tells you not to do something, why on earth would you do it?

because men have a habit of fucking things up even when God-inspired

Yes I can, but can you change my mind? Would'nt that be the point of debate?

Didn't you already reply to this?
Besides, don't we have the muffins of peace?

Besides, responding to someone's post with "can you read?" doesn't exactly speak well of your desire to debate now does it?

You can easily reject them without rejecting Christ. How? Easy.

I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and died on the cross to forgivemy sins. However, I do not believe that one guy who followed him around for a while and one guy who changed his mind could speak for him. Easy as that



Christ gave them authority. To reject their authority that Christ gave them would be to reject Christ.

Christ gave them authority. To reject their authority that Christ gave them would be to reject Christ.

Did not God give authority to the King of Israelites in the Old Testament only to have the shmuck screw up and have to be replaced? Same principle. The Bible's pretty big on God giving people something and then they screw up with it and I dubt these guys were any different.

edit: spelling

Did not God give authority to the King of Israelites in the Old Testament only to have the shmuck screw up and have to be replaced? Same principle. The Bible's pretty big on God giving people something and then they screw up with it and I dubt these guys were any different.

edit: spelling


He gave them authority but did not communicate directly with them (He did it through prophets and priests). Also, Paul and Peter never really had God condemn them through prophets who predicted their downfall. The difference between the kings and the apostles is that God gave the kings the authority to rule the land and the apostles the authority to teach and spread His will.

He gave them authority but did not communicate directly with them (He did it through prophets and priests). Also, Paul and Peter never really had God condemn them through prophets who predicted their downfall. The difference between the kings and the apostles is that God gave the kings the authority to rule the land and the apostles the authority to teach and spread His will.

Point being? Paul, Peter, and the rest of the apostles were faliable mortals.Saying they couldn't possibly have made mistakes or overstated or misinterpreted things told to them by an "infinite being" is less than logical. I also believe there was an instance of a burning bush...

Edit: Don't you find it kind of strange that these men would write that they recieved divine guidance? What if this was merely a way of keeping the church from fratcturing to early instead of the total truth. Wouldn't spending as much time with Jesus as they did be something along the lines of divine guidance as they saw and heard most of what he did?

Point being? Paul, Peter, and the rest of the apostles were faliable mortals.Saying they couldn't possibly have made mistakes or overstated or misinterpreted things told to them by an "infinite being" is less than logical. I also believe there was an instance of a burning bush...


True, mortals are fallable. However, do you seriously think God would let the ministers of his word, right when Christianity was forming, corrupt the religion? We can only assume that they were right.

True, mortals are fallable. However, do you seriously think God would let the ministers of his word, right when Christianity was forming, corrupt the religion? We can only assume that they were right.

Personally, I prefer Irish Christanity.

You know, before Rome decided to smack it down and destroy it?

By all accounts, it was much nicer.

Didn't you already reply to this?
Besides, don't we have the muffins of peace?

Besides, responding to someone's post with "can you read?" doesn't exactly speak well of your desire to debate now does it?

Oh sorry my browser is acting up, and true, Im better now.

Long live the muffins of peace! :D

Oh sorry my browser is acting up, and true, Im better now.

Long live the muffins of peace! :D

So what kind of muffins do you prefer?

Gee I guess your running of of things to say because now all you're doing is resorting to your ignorant, unfounded insults you can't wait to throw at me. I'm not even going to bother responding individually to every stupid thing you said because I can see that no matter how many times I tear what you have to say apart you will always manage to find some immature, illogical thing to say in response just so that you can keep hating us for no reason other than your obvious disgust in how we happen to express our love for one another.And quite frankly, I think the ideas of heterosexual sex and lesbian sex is rather disgusting, but I don't hate them because of it..I just don't waste my time thinking about it!


Actually that was one of my earlier posts in this thread to see how people reacted and I do admit that it was rather juvenile, but it does'nt summ up how I really feel. I was just poking at you, and I apologise. Though, it did get responses and predictably all I heard were the same party line commentaries in response.
I dont have anything against homosexuals, I just dont care for gays, and there is a difference. Homosexuals dont have to act gay, that is a chioce. Who you have sex with should'nt have anything to do with how you conduct yourself in society. Yeah, gay rallies with half nude men playing grab ass in public is real mature. Saying "I fucking hate all christians because they dont agree with me" is real mature, I have never profesed to be christian nor have I used the bible to make a point. I actually lean left of center on social issues.
If you want me to respect you as a man then conduct yourself with some dignity, dont swish your ass around in public, dont put on some bad imitation of a hooker when you walk, and by god if your gonna dress like a woman please shave your beard first. Because clearly any man who tries to act like a woman(or their twisted idea of one) has issues. And people with issues arent taken seriously by me or society. As for homosexuals marrying, not until they distance themselves from gays.
And on your last sentence, are you gay or are'nt you because above you stated: "keep hating us" then later you stated: "I think the ideas of heterosexual sex and lesbian sex is rather disgusting, but I don't hate them because of it..I just don't waste my time thinking about it!", because if you are gay then you surely do have issues. ;)

So what kind of muffins do you prefer?

Blackberry! ;)

Blackberry! ;)

I've never had those, they sound rather queer.

I've never had those, they sound rather queer.

Blackberry muffins are very common where I live...

Being black and being female do not violate any biblical teachings, whereas homosexuality (in practice that is) does. Try to find a better comparison.
According to your current interpretation. 100, 150 years ago, it was very common for American Protestants to interpret the story of Cain and Abel, to mean that "the mark of Cain" meant he turned black and that, as well as scripture saying you don't grow many plants in one field, to mean that blacks and whites should not interbreed.

Yes, being homosexual violates your interpretation of the Bible, but there are many gay Christian who cite compelling historical evidence that "homosexual" in the Bible refers to groups of gay prostitutes, who worshipped foreign Gods. That's their interpretation, you have yours, just as many Christians also used to interpret the Bible to mean that we should not have interracial marriages.

Legislate them out of existence? Where did you get that absurd idea from? I just don't want our government to legalize/endorse sin more than it already has!

What is and is not 'sin' is HIGHLY subjective. The USA is NOT a Christian nation and therefore its government should not and, by its own law, cannot favour one religion over any other. The fact that they do anyway is disturbing, but that is beside the point. Your definition of 'sin' is not universal.

Blackberry muffins are very common where I live...

What an odd world we live in. But unlike savages, we can set aside our differences.

What is and is not 'sin' is HIGHLY subjective. The USA is NOT a Christian nation and therefore its government should not and, by its own law, cannot favour one religion over any other. The fact that they do anyway is disturbing, but that is beside the point. Your definition of 'sin' is not universal.

Right on.

Government cannot legislate sin on the basis that God says it is a sin.

While certain idiots in California are trying, I don't see much legislation against gluttony, now, do I?

Or vengance. Not much US Law saying you can't get revenge. Can't kill/harm anyone, but I don't need to kill or harm 'em to get my revenge.

Pride? Everyone loves to be proud.

Lust? AFAIK, there is no legislation saying you can't shag as many people as you want so long as its consensual.

Envy? Dear lord, our economy is based on it.

Sloth? ...don't get me started on Red Tape.

Greed? See Envy.


Those are the Seven Deadly Sins, aren't they? I think that they'd be a bit more important than having consensual homosexual sex between two people who love each other.

What an odd world we live in. But unlike savages, we can set aside our differences.

Like hell, its California. Differentiate away.

I've never had those, they sound rather queer.

nope, just black, berry, blackberries! :D

Blackberry muffins are very common where I live...

My alltime fav are Jamaican blackberry muffins. ;)

nope, just black, berry, blackberries! :D

Well, as long as it's not cherry. I hate cherry.

Well, as long as it's not cherry. I hate cherry.

I like cherry pie, oh and those sweet bar cheeries I forget how to spell their name. Maracino?

But Muffins are the best! :D

According to your current interpretation. 100, 150 years ago, it was very common for American Protestants to interpret the story of Cain and Abel, to mean that "the mark of Cain" meant he turned black and that, as well as scripture saying you don't grow many plants in one field, to mean that blacks and whites should not interbreed.

Yes, being homosexual violates your interpretation of the Bible, but there are many gay Christian who cite compelling historical evidence that "homosexual" in the Bible refers to groups of gay prostitutes, who worshipped foreign Gods. That's their interpretation, you have yours, just as many Christians also used to interpret the Bible to mean that we should not have interracial marriages.


But those were abstract interpretations! The bible is quite clear on homosexuals!

But those were abstract interpretations! The bible is quite clear on homosexuals!

There are many, even within the various sects of the Christian church, who would disagree with you.

are many, even within the various sects of the Christian church, who would disagree with you.


And you know how? They pick and choose the parts they like.

What about the children of Ham? I cant remember much but I think that relates.

There are many, even within the various sects of the Christian church, who would disagree with you.

Which would be impossible if the bible were clear.

Which would be impossible if the bible were clear.


I doubt it, as people will always find a way to rationalize error. They're doing it with rejecting Romans 1, so I'm sure they could find a way to do it with ANYTHING.

And you know how? They pick and choose the parts they like.

Unlike you?

And you know how? They pick and choose the parts they like.

Every Christian I have ever met in my entire life, including priests/ministers/etc does that. You find me a Christian who takes every word in the Bible at face value, without interpretation, and lives strictly by every one of those words and I will give you a lollypop.

What about the children of Ham? I cant remember much but I think that relates.
There are children that come from ham, in the Bible? Like.. Cabbage Patch kids, except MEAT?

No wonder their perceptions of reality are so distorted.

Unlike you?


Unless the book is obviously metaphorical (Revelation anyone?) then yes, unlike me.

Unless the book is obviously metaphorical (Revelation anyone?) then yes, unlike me.

Ah, so your interpretation of Revelation is that it's metaphorical. Doesn't mean it's the correct interpretation.

Unless the book is obviously metaphorical (Revelation anyone?) then yes, unlike me.

Ah, okay. Have you ever worn a polyester/cotton blend (or any fabric blend) piece of clothing? If you have, then you are in breach of Leviticus. Or have you just decided that that law is outdated, now?

Has anyone ever come and tried to tell you that your religion isn't right and you shouldn't worship your deity of choice? If so, then that person should be dead now, because you should have stoned them to death.

There are children that come from ham, in the Bible? Like.. Cabbage Patch kids, except MEAT?

No wonder their perceptions of reality are so distorted.

I was actually asking to gain some knowledge, but nemermind I looked it up. :D

I'm surprised that nobody has actually brought up the only valid arguement against homosexual marriage.

There is one, by the by, one that doesn't resort to "Sanctity of Marriage" "God hates Gays" "Its icky."

Should I say what it is?
Yes please, let me know, I'm dying to hear!

hahaha that 12 reasons thing is brilliant - hoorah for equality

Jesus gave authority to Paul and Peter before returning to heaven, as did the Holy Spirit. You cannot reject them without rejecting Christ :p

No he didn't, he told them to spread the message of Jesus and God; he said nothing about making up new rules as they went along.

Want to follow Paul and Peter? then hand your Christian card up at the front desk, and join the cult of the Mygynous Couple.

As for me, I'm not Christian; I was baptised as a Catholic, but left 14 years ago. If you want to look for a way to waste 2 hours on the week end, then by all means, sign up to become a Christian.

peter and paul didnt say shit, they r fictional charecters and what they sed has been translated 100s of times n e ways

Im a gay and a christian, and that works for me;) as people before me have said, I think it is important to interpret the bible, or at least that is my point of it. It's a way to teach us things, and it still does, but you have to beware that it is written a long time a go. believing that the bible is literally you would also allow me to have you as a slave, since the bible says that oyu should be able to have someone as a slave as long as he's not your neighbour. and i live in sweden so i don't think im your neighbour ;)

that 12 reasons was great btw!

Yes please, let me know, I'm dying to hear!

Becuase we're not ready for it. Not this generation, but the next.

Its why I'm against gay marriage NOW. Because people like New Rogolia would react like they do.

However, time is against those who are against gay marriage at all. Thirty years ago, you couldn't say you were gay at all. Twenty years ago, you could and not lose your job and such. Ten years ago, you could and not be thrown out of society for it.
This year, you can say it and most people are like, "Uh, whatever."
In ten years, people would be like, "So, what? Oh, hey, look at this new CD!"

Its simply time. Time changes a people's ethics and views on subjects. It used to be against society to have a mixed ethnic marriage. Now I see it all the time.

It used to be that women were second class citizens and couldn't vote. Now, they vote and if anything, are better than first class citizens.

It is now that Homosexuals are being denied rights Heterosexual people have, the right to marry (and all the other legalish stuff that comes with THAT). In the future, people will look back on this like the Sufferage Movement and the Civil Rights Movement, and look back on those that opposed 'em as ignorant racist bigots.

That is, if the world doesn't collpase before then. Which it might, but thats a totally seperate issue from gay marriage.

Oh, and by the by, I have a friend that almost got kicked out permenantly from a bookstore for moving all the bibles to the fiction section.

Almost, because the manager winked and nudged.

Okay, I really need to go to bed, so I'll read the rest of this thread later. But I had to comment on this first:

I view homosexuality as a chosen behavior. Eventhough there has in the recent past been much controvery about a possible genetic component,whether true or not, I still believe there are behavior choices involved.

In 1991, neurobiologist Simon LeVay did a study in which he autopsied the brains of 19 gay men, 16 straight men, and 6 straight women. He examined a nucleus in the hypothalamus in each brain, with only numbers labeling them (he didn't know whose brain one was from while he was studying it).

This nucleus is known to be involved in regulating sexual behavior, and to be larger in straight men than in women. He found that the nuclei in the gay men's brains were half the size of the straight men's nuclei, and around the same size as the womens'. So, there is a biological difference.

If you're referring to the choice as being whether or not to act on your emotions/urges (regardless of whether or not they can be helped), then by your logic heterosexuality is a choice, also. So neither one would be more "natural" than the other; one is just more socially acceptable.

And if that is your reasoning, do you believe that gay people should deny their true feelings, and never allow themselves true love? Just curious.

Another thing for you to chew on; if you can choose to be gay or straight, why are there gay people out there killing themselves because their families/society won't accept them the way they are? Why are gay men marrying women they won't love just to "fit in?"

Also, are all those gay animals out there making a conscious choice to be that way? There are documented cases of gay penguins, many of which keep going back to same-sex "mates." Are they intelligent enough to "decide" that they want to have sex without producing offspring?

And I really like the point someone (I believe Flatearth?) brought up earlier: If it's a choice, I'd like you to try being gay for a week. You don't have to kiss or anything, but go out on a couple dates, hold hands, or at least try checking out any cute guys/girls you come across. Test out your theory.

And one more thing before I collapse in bed. For those of you who claim that God says homosexuality is wrong, then why did He create people that way? It's undeniable that there's a biological difference. It's like saying that people who hear voices are talking to the Devil, and therefore sinning/acting against God's will, and they should be denied rights that the rest of us non-schizophrenics enjoy. THEY CAN'T HELP IT!!!

Anyhoo, I'm going to bed. Anybody who believes that homosexuality is a choice, please answer my questions. Not doing so only proves to me that you have nothing with which to back up your "theory." This in turn leads me to believe that you only hold this view so that you can somehow justify your bigotry.

Have a nice night. ;)

Oh, and by the by, I have a friend that almost got kicked out permenantly from a bookstore for moving all the bibles to the fiction section.

Almost, because the manager winked and nudged.

That is funny, lol

Well Languassia, that seems to be a good point you're making there. However, I think that there will always be people who will react as outraged as some have on this thread, but that is no reason of course to not change this law, it is rather a reason to do change this law.
If the government shows that homosexuals are equal and as valuable as heterosexuals, then maybe the acceptation of homosexuality will come more quickly, like has happened in the past with civil rights issues concerning African Americans. The Government should stand up for everyone, minorities in particular, and fight against prejudice, instead of saying things like "two men raising a kid is bad for its health", which only makes the problem worse for the minority. Opposing gay marriage is a sign of politicians only being concerned with the next election, instead of civil rights, which I think is the first job any government has.
Furthermore, this also doesn't dispute Deleuze's great point, which I will quote one more time, in hope for a reaction.

Not necessarily true. Allowing homosexual couples to get marriage licenses doesn't impose my values on you, because it doesn't affect you at all. It's not like I banned heterosexual marriage in the process. They get married, and leave you alone. I also am not forcing your church to allow gay people to get married. They still have a right to do that.

Becuase we're not ready for it. Not this generation, but the next.

Its why I'm against gay marriage NOW. Because people like New Rogolia would react like they do.

However, time is against those who are against gay marriage at all. Thirty years ago, you couldn't say you were gay at all. Twenty years ago, you could and not lose your job and such. Ten years ago, you could and not be thrown out of society for it.
This year, you can say it and most people are like, "Uh, whatever."
In ten years, people would be like, "So, what? Oh, hey, look at this new CD!"

Its simply time. Time changes a people's ethics and views on subjects. It used to be against society to have a mixed ethnic marriage. Now I see it all the time.

It used to be that women were second class citizens and couldn't vote. Now, they vote and if anything, are better than first class citizens.

It is now that Homosexuals are being denied rights Heterosexual people have, the right to marry (and all the other legalish stuff that comes with THAT). In the future, people will look back on this like the Sufferage Movement and the Civil Rights Movement, and look back on those that opposed 'em as ignorant racist bigots.

That is, if the world doesn't collpase before then. Which it might, but thats a totally seperate issue from gay marriage.

But why do so many americans from all backgrounds hold reservations towards the gay community? You would think the black community would accept them but then, rightly, got pissed when gays compared the gay civil rights movement to theirs. Hell, pushing for marriage even got some of them to vote for Bush. And not to mention the Latino community. With their staunch Catholic tendancies. So its not like only WASPs are objecting to to this trivial issue, but a spectrum of society. Thats more than just a speed bump.

If the government shows that homosexuals are equal and as valuable as heterosexuals, then maybe the acceptation of homosexuality will come more quickly, like has happened in the past with civil rights issues concerning African Americans.

As I have said before, somewhere, African Americans dispelled stereotypes, they showed that they could assimilate, that they were just as smart and as productive as anyone. They did'nt start using bad english, and acting dumb just because thats what society thought of them. The men did'nt go and marry every white woman they could find just because thats what the propaganda said they would do. They did'nt hold watermelon eating contests or cotton picking parades. And besides its not like black people can just turn off the whole being black thing, they were always black. A gay person can however turn off the gay thing. They can walk normally, talk normally, and otherwise blend into society whenever they choose. Being homosexual does not equate being gay, people do not have to know a mile away who you sleep with.
Im in a interracial relationship, we live in San Francisco and we still get looks, people even sometimes say things. So I think they shold take some time to think about what image they want to present to society before they push this issue any further

As I have said before, somewhere, African Americans dispelled stereotypes, they showed that they could assimilate, that they were just as smart and as productive as anyone. They did'nt start using bad english, and acting dumb just because thats what society thought of them. The men did'nt go and marry every white woman they could find just because thats what the propaganda said they would do. They did'nt hold watermelon eating contests or cotton picking parades. And besides its not like black people can just turn off the whole being black thing, they were always black. A gay person can however turn off the gay thing. They can walk normally, talk normally, and otherwise blend into society whenever they choose. Being homosexual does not equate being gay, people do not have to know a mile away who you sleep with.
Im in a interracial relationship, we live in San Francisco and we still get looks, people even sometimes say things. So I think they shold take some time to think about what image they want to present to society before they push this issue any further
Wow, you're basically saying that every homosexual can be spotted from a mile off. I only wish this was true, then I'd have a much higher chance of finding a boyfriend :)
Anyway, I think you yourself realise that what you're saying is discriminating. I for one have never raped anyone (big prejudice against homosexuals) nor done drugs (another one), therefore your statement can't be true.
You said that you don't need to know from a mile off who people are sleeping with, but these people might want you to know. Being homosexual is a rather tricky thing, you see. You never know if the person you like has the same sexual preference as you do, therefore letting them know by means of speech and/or tread enables you to find a mate. Ever thought of it that way? Probably not, since heterosexuals generally presume the whole world is heterosexual and don't think what it must be like to be homosexual.
As for the gay pride parade: yes, it's confrontational, but it's meant that way. And don't you think the million man march was just as confrontational in the time it was held?
I hope that I have done my bit presenting the right image of a homosexual to you.

Actually that was one of my earlier posts in this thread to see how people reacted and I do admit that it was rather juvenile, but it does'nt summ up how I really feel. I was just poking at you, and I apologise. Though, it did get responses and predictably all I heard were the same party line commentaries in response.
Right then... And the party-line comments are what?
That people was offended by your insults? Yea, that's so not justified. You should be able to say whatever you like about homo's & bi's without anyone taking offence...
Btw, you've heard of irony, right?
I dont have anything against homosexuals, I just dont care for gays, and there is a difference. Homosexuals dont have to act gay, that is a chioce. Who you have sex with should'nt have anything to do with how you conduct yourself in society. Yeah, gay rallies with half nude men playing grab ass in public is real mature. Saying "I fucking hate all christians because they dont agree with me" is real mature, I have never profesed to be christian nor have I used the bible to make a point. I actually lean left of center on social issues.
If you want me to respect you as a man then conduct yourself with some dignity, dont swish your ass around in public, dont put on some bad imitation of a hooker when you walk, and by god if your gonna dress like a woman please shave your beard first. Because clearly any man who tries to act like a woman(or their twisted idea of one) has issues. And people with issues arent taken seriously by me or society. As for homosexuals marrying, not until they distance themselves from gays.
So you feel justified for bitching about gays who act feminin or cross-dress? How would you feel about gays who're disgusted by men who act masculine? Would you think they were justified as well? Double standards are fuck-awesome aren't they mate?
Speaking of which, the bulk of crossdressers aren't homosexuals. They're 110% hetero.
Pride parades etc. cater to just as many hetero's as it does homo's. If you don't like it, ignore it. You live in a vast country, surely you can avoid them if you wish. Or do you just get a kick from flaunting your double standards?
BEcause that's what it is. Otherwise gays should be outraged over the straight society. Anarchists should terrorise the 4th of Juli. Religious people should be running around trying to sabotage eachothers hollidays and parades etc. etc...
You live in a multi-cultural society. Get used to it.
And why should marriage only be for people who act a certain way? If you're gonna be that radical about it, only followers of certain religions should be allowed to marry... Or are you just prejudiced against homo's and bi's?
And! Femi-gays are a minute minority. The vast majority of gays are every bit as masculine as anyone else. Or did you think the US had 15 million crossdressing homo's running around in high heels?! ...Nuts.
And on your last sentence, are you gay or are'nt you because above you stated: "keep hating us" then later you stated: "I think the ideas of heterosexual sex and lesbian sex is rather disgusting, but I don't hate them because of it..I just don't waste my time thinking about it!", because if you are gay then you surely do have issues.
Obviously the guy is a homo. But why do you think he has issues? Is it because he isn't turned on by pussy? Surely you have issues too then, because from your posting, it's quite clear you are repulsed by the thought of a big hard dick in your mouth. The only difference between you two is he doesn't want to limit your behaviour. He thinks it's perfectly natural for you to persue whatever genitals you like. Sure, he can't relate, but he doesn't want to limit your behaviour or hamper your persuit of happiness.
I think you're far far more of a hypocrite than any other single poster in this thread.


But those were abstract interpretations! The bible is quite clear on homosexuals!
<Snip>
And you know how? They pick and choose the parts they like.
I'm not gonna be dragged into a religious arguement, but I have to ask... Back when I read the bible, I'm pretty damn sure it said something about false prophets. It was something like: If you preach the religion but doesn't abide by it's doctrines, then you're a false prophet and will burn in hell for eternity.
One of the doctrines is to live in absolute poverty, right? Seeing how often, and over how long a period of time, you post here, I can only conclude you don't abide by that doctrine. And since you actively preach, you're a false prophet. I really hope you get along great with the homo's & bi's, because I get the impression you'll be spending a lot of time together if your religion is right.
That said, I fail to see why your religion, one of 100's, should dictate the laws for millions of people, most of whom doesn't agree with you in the slightest. What gives you the right? Your religion? Why should another's religion not give him or her the right to outlaw Chistianity altogether then?

One of the doctrines is to live in absolute poverty, right? Seeing how often, and over how long a period of time, you post here, I can only conclude you don't abide by that doctrine. And since you actively preach, you're a false prophet. I really hope you get along great with the homo's & bi's, because I get the impression you'll be spending a lot of time together if your religion is right.
That said, I fail to see why your religion, one of 100's, should dictate the laws for millions of people, most of whom doesn't agree with you in the slightest. What gives you the right? Your religion? Why should another's religion not give him or her the right to outlaw Chistianity altogether then?

Sorry. WHICH doctrine teaches followers to live in absolute poverty????

Sorry. WHICH doctrine teaches followers to live in absolute poverty????
Acts.

Sorry, but there is: the government is (supposed to be) made up of the people - that includes all the peoples' beliefs. So if the people want gay marriage to be allowed/disallowed, then it has to be done. In democracy, anyway.
Luckily no country is a pure democracy. By this stage we have realised that governments should be religiously neutral.

Legislate them out of existence? Where did you get that absurd idea from? I just don't want our government to legalize/endorse sin more than it already has!
The Bible bans homosexuality. You want the Bible to become law. Thus, you want to legislate homosexuals out of existence. That is, to drive them "underground".

Besides, legalising gay marriage wouldn't make homosexuality any more legal than it already is. Unless you are into declaratory law, where in your eyes a ban on gay marriage exists to remind gays that what they do is unofficially a crime.

This isn't really relevant to the thing you quoted me saying (I guess you messed up during the copy/paste so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) but in Bible on at least 3 occasions men, inspired by God, condemned homosexuality. Now, if a perfect supreme being tells you not to do something, why on earth would you do it?
You're making the instant assumption that the aforementioned higher being is the Christian God. I suppose you think this because the Bible says so.

When we hold back from making that assumption about this mysterious higher being, we are left with no reasons to think that it is against gay marriage.

But those were abstract interpretations! The bible is quite clear on homosexuals!
No, it's not. As Dempublicents1 said
That all depends on how you translate the Hebrew. In fact, it is very likely that the passage actually says that lying in the bed of a menstrating woman is an abomination. Go figure.

Do you read Hebrew?


And you know how? They pick and choose the parts they like.
Just like you do. (Voting Republican)

What kind of egomaniac are you to think yourself infallible and sinless?

No, it's not. As Dempublicents1 said

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dempublicents1
That all depends on how you translate the Hebrew. In fact, it is very likely that the passage actually says that lying in the bed of a menstrating woman is an abomination. Go figure.

Do you read Hebrew?


Actually, the passage does say that lying with a woman on her monthly is unclean. It mentions that seperately from lying with a man. Nice try.





The Bible bans homosexuality. You want the Bible to become law. Thus, you want to legislate homosexuals out of existence. That is, to drive them "underground".

Besides, legalising gay marriage wouldn't make homosexuality any more legal than it already is. Unless you are into declaratory law, where in your eyes a ban on gay marriage exists to remind gays that what they do is unofficially a crime.


I certainly wouldn't mind if they reinstated the sodomy laws.

I'm not gonna be dragged into a religious arguement, but I have to ask... Back when I read the bible, I'm pretty damn sure it said something about false prophets. It was something like: If you preach the religion but doesn't abide by it's doctrines, then you're a false prophet and will burn in hell for eternity.
One of the doctrines is to live in absolute poverty, right? Seeing how often, and over how long a period of time, you post here, I can only conclude you don't abide by that doctrine. And since you actively preach, you're a false prophet. I really hope you get along great with the homo's & bi's, because I get the impression you'll be spending a lot of time together if your religion is right.
That said, I fail to see why your religion, one of 100's, should dictate the laws for millions of people, most of whom doesn't agree with you in the slightest. What gives you the right? Your religion? Why should another's religion not give him or her the right to outlaw Chistianity altogether then?



Asceticism is a Catholic doctrine that is mentioned nowhere in the Bible. Way to make things up :rolleyes:

Ah, okay. Have you ever worn a polyester/cotton blend (or any fabric blend) piece of clothing? If you have, then you are in breach of Leviticus. Or have you just decided that that law is outdated, now?

Has anyone ever come and tried to tell you that your religion isn't right and you shouldn't worship your deity of choice? If so, then that person should be dead now, because you should have stoned them to death.



Have you not read this thread? I've already said that the old law was abolished when Jesus died on the cross. WHich means that I can wear cotton and wool together, thank you very much.

No he didn't, he told them to spread the message of Jesus and God; he said nothing about making up new rules as they went along.

Want to follow Paul and Peter? then hand your Christian card up at the front desk, and join the cult of the Mygynous Couple.

As for me, I'm not Christian; I was baptised as a Catholic, but left 14 years ago. If you want to look for a way to waste 2 hours on the week end, then by all means, sign up to become a Christian.




Luke 10:16 Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.

Acts.




No no. Jesus acknowledges the fact that some people are slaves and some people are masters. His followers included slaveowners and landowevers He wasn't against rich people.

Have you not read this thread? I've already said that the old law was abolished when Jesus died on the cross. WHich means that I can wear cotton and wool together, thank you very much.
Well, at least you are able to dress nicely then :)

But seriously, can you explain to me how Jesus does this and why it only applies to certain parts of the old testament? Because that's what I don't understand about this. I wasn't raised religiously you see, so I have no idea what you mean by this.

Oh, and some more verses on apostolic authority:

Acts 5:13
Acts 15:6,24; 16:4
Rom. 15:16
2 Cor. 5:20
2 Cor. 10:8
1 Thess. 5:12-13
Titus 2:15 (actually, this concerns Timothy who was not an apostle but he was given authority by Paul who had the power to give authority because Jesus bestowed it upon him)
2 Peter 2:10

But seriously, can you explain to me how Jesus does this and why it only applies to certain parts of the old testament? Because that's what I don't understand about this. I wasn't raised religiously you see, so I have no idea what you mean by this.


Sure, as soon as I get home from church :)

Have you not read this thread? I've already said that the old law was abolished when Jesus died on the cross. WHich means that I can wear cotton and wool together, thank you very much.

Yet Leviticus is still present, in full, in the New Testament (that is, books which bear the title 'New Testament' on the cover). Are you picking and choosing which bits of the Bible you like and which you don't? Tsk tsk. Perhaps you could show me a Bible where the true bits are highlighted, yes?

He gave them authority but did not communicate directly with them (He did it through prophets and priests). Also, Paul and Peter never really had God condemn them through prophets who predicted their downfall. The difference between the kings and the apostles is that God gave the kings the authority to rule the land and the apostles the authority to teach and spread His will.
Yes, Jesus gave them authority, and made them infallible. It says so right in the book that they helped write. So it must be true!!!.

Jesus gave authority to Paul and Peter before returning to heaven, as did the Holy Spirit. You cannot reject them without rejecting Christ :p

That is personal belief - not actual fact.

In fact, it is not even (and has never been) universally accepted withing the Christian churches. Many, many people believe that Paul and Peter were still fallible human beings. They certainly weren't Christ himself.

Oh, and by the by, I have a friend that almost got kicked out permenantly from a bookstore for moving all the bibles to the fiction section.

Almost, because the manager winked and nudged.
LOL! Who is this friend, and can I worship them as a false idol?

But those were abstract interpretations! The bible is quite clear on homosexuals!

Incorrect. If you go back to the original text, it isn't clear in the least. The Leviticus text can be translated just as (if not more) correctly to be a prohibition against sleeping in the bed of (or lying with) a menstruating woman.

The word used by Paul that is now commonly translated into homosexual was a new word at the time of its use. It is incredibly unclear what the word means. However, it was quite common at the time for Roman men to take young boys as prostitutes and this is just as (if not more, as the concept of homosexuality as an orientation was not known in that society) likely the proper meaning as "homosexual" is.

Let me repeat something for you since you seem to have forgotten it:

YOU ARE NOT GOD. YOU ARE NOT INFALLIBLE. YOU ARE A HUMAN BEING WITH HUMAN FAILINGS

They pick and choose the parts they like.

Everyone does.

The good ones ask for God's guidance in doing so.

Have you not read this thread? I've already said that the old law was abolished when Jesus died on the cross. WHich means that I can wear cotton and wool together, thank you very much.
Well, then, you automatically lose any argument that comes from the OT. ......nuts.

No no. Jesus acknowledges the fact that some people are slaves and some people are masters. His followers included slaveowners and landowevers He wasn't against rich people.
Then why did he say that it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven?
Oh, wait... he wasn't "against" rich people... he just said that they would burn in hell for all eternity. Love the sinner, hate the sin, eh?

No no. Jesus acknowledges the fact that some people are slaves and some people are masters. His followers included slaveowners and landowevers He wasn't against rich people.

...and he told the rich people that, to follow him, they had to give up everything and follow him. Didn't really work much.

The vast majority of Christ's followers were servants, slaves, and the impoverished. His admonishments to slaves were more pragmatic than anything - they were meant to keep the slave from getting killed for an uprising.

Or do you think that an omnibenevolent God somehow condones enslaving another human being, an objectively evil action?

The word used by Paul that is now commonly translated into homosexual was a new word at the time of its use. It is incredibly unclear what the word means. However, it was quite common at the time for Roman men to take young boys as prostitutes and this is just as (if not more, as the concept of homosexuality as an orientation was not known in that society) likely the proper meaning as "homosexual" is.

Let me repeat something for you since you seem to have forgotten it:

YOU ARE NOT GOD. YOU ARE NOT INFALLIBLE. YOU ARE A HUMAN BEING WITH HUMAN FAILINGS


Romans 1...pretty precise.

Well, then, you automatically lose any argument that comes from the OT. ......nuts.


Actually, just the old >>LAW<<. Most of the OT involves history instead of laws.

That is personal belief - not actual fact.

In fact, it is not even (and has never been) universally accepted withing the Christian churches. Many, many people believe that Paul and Peter were still fallible human beings. They certainly weren't Christ himself.


Read the verses I posted on apostolic authority that Christ granted. We must accept what they say, no matter how much we dislike it.

Incorrect. If you go back to the original text, it isn't clear in the least. The Leviticus text can be translated just as (if not more) correctly to be a prohibition against sleeping in the bed of (or lying with) a menstruating woman.


Umm..actually, it mentions both...



Leviticus 15:19-33 19 " 'When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening.

20 " 'Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. 21 Whoever touches her bed must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. 22 Whoever touches anything she sits on must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. 23 Whether it is the bed or anything she was sitting on, when anyone touches it, he will be unclean till evening.

24 " 'If a man lies with her and her monthly flow touches him, he will be unclean for seven days; any bed he lies on will be unclean.

25 " 'When a woman has a discharge of blood for many days at a time other than her monthly period or has a discharge that continues beyond her period, she will be unclean as long as she has the discharge, just as in the days of her period. 26 Any bed she lies on while her discharge continues will be unclean, as is her bed during her monthly period, and anything she sits on will be unclean, as during her period. 27 Whoever touches them will be unclean; he must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening.

28 " 'When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. 29 On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 30 The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the LORD for the uncleanness of her discharge.

31 " 'You must keep the Israelites separate from things that make them unclean, so they will not die in their uncleanness for defiling my dwelling place, [a] which is among them.' "

32 These are the regulations for a man with a discharge, for anyone made unclean by an emission of semen, 33 for a woman in her monthly period, for a man or a woman with a discharge, and for a man who lies with a woman who is ceremonially unclean.




Leviticus 18:19 'Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.




Leviticus 18:22 22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

Luke 10:16 Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.
SO basicaly "believe I am who I say I am otherwise you are rejecting god (and therefore going to burn in hell for all eternity)" pfft seems like a good way to sucker the scared or week into believing anything he said

Holy God, the Creator, sanctified marriage as the union between a man and a woman.

Show me undenyable proof that your God created the world, and that it didn't create itself over millions upon millions of years. Bubble theory anyone? Since you have no solid foundation for who created marriage, we have to create our own. Don't even bother bringing religion into the discussion.

Show me undenyable proof that your God created the world, and that it didn't create itself over millions upon millions of years. Bubble theory anyone? Since you have no solid foundation for who created marriage, we have to create our own. Don't even bother bringing religion into the discussion.


But you haven't a theory that explains the origin of the matter for the big bang....but we do, so the shoe is on the other foot :D

Show me undenyable proof that your God created the world, and that it didn't create itself over millions upon millions of years. Bubble theory anyone? Since you have no solid foundation for who created marriage, we have to create our own. Don't even bother bringing religion into the discussion.

Even the Holy Roman Catholic Church accepts evolution, and now proclaims the Garden of Eden story to be symbolic.

SO basicaly "believe I am who I say I am otherwise you are rejecting god (and therefore going to burn in hell for all eternity)" pfft seems like a good way to sucker the scared or week into believing anything he said



Well, in my experience, you tend to listen to the Son of God anyway ;)

But you haven't a theory that explains the origin of the matter for the big bang....but we do, so the shoe is on the other foot :D

Matter generates spontaneously in particle-antiparticle pairs, all the time, everywhere...most of these pairs mutually annihilate but as a result of the way this particular cosmos is set up, there is a bias toward particles that allows them to survive more easily than antiparticles.

Matter generates spontaneously in particle-antiparticle pairs, all the time, everywhere...most of these pairs mutually annihilate but as a result of the way this particular cosmos is set up, there is a bias toward particles that allows them to survive more easily than antiparticles.



Read my previous post on vacuums.

I personally think the Church's stance on marriage is hypocritical. In Matthew, Jesus makes a very clear admonition against divorce. Yet most denominations are willing to marry someone who has been divorced. But no, we can't let gay people get married. :rolleyes:

I'm not saying letting people get divorced is bad. I'm just saying allowing re-marriage but taking a stance against gay marriage is wrong.

P.S. I know there are some{ very small} denominations that accept homosexuality. But the majority of the Christian Church has obviously taken a stand against( albeit after some conflict among their ranks i.e. the not-quite-schism in the Methodist Church)

Read my previous post on vacuums.

Are you mad? This thread is already 46 pages long, I do have a career.

I personally think the Church's stance on marriage is hypocritical. In Matthew, Jesus makes a very clear admonition against divorce. Yet most denominations are willing to marry someone who has been divorced. But no, we can't let gay people get married.

I'm not saying letting people get divorced is bad. I'm just saying allowing re-marriage but taking a stance against gay marriage is wrong.



Amen on the divorce part. The church I attend adamantly opposes divorce for reasons other than adultery, just as Christ did.

Are you mad? This thread is already 46 pages long, I do have a career.


Come to think of it, I think I posted it in the other religion thread anyway hehe.

And do not confuse the Big Bang with "the beginning of all things", it is simply an event beyond which we cannot see or predict what went before. All the matter can just as easily still be there, but due to the immensely strong gravity and "infinite" density (not actually infinite) the "rules" of nature that we are currently using to make sense of the universe break down and do not adequately allow us to explain what happened.

Well, in my experience, you tend to listen to the Son of God anyway ;)
Only if you believe he is the sun of god to start with

Yes, Jesus gave them authority, and made them infallible. It says so right in the book that they helped write. So it must be true!!!.

LOL - good point ;)
Is it written in any book he (or his friends/fans) did not write ?

Umm..actually, it mentions both...



Leviticus 15:19-33 19 " 'When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening.

20 " 'Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. 21 Whoever touches her bed must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. 22 Whoever touches anything she sits on must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. 23 Whether it is the bed or anything she was sitting on, when anyone touches it, he will be unclean till evening.

24 " 'If a man lies with her and her monthly flow touches him, he will be unclean for seven days; any bed he lies on will be unclean.

25 " 'When a woman has a discharge of blood for many days at a time other than her monthly period or has a discharge that continues beyond her period, she will be unclean as long as she has the discharge, just as in the days of her period. 26 Any bed she lies on while her discharge continues will be unclean, as is her bed during her monthly period, and anything she sits on will be unclean, as during her period. 27 Whoever touches them will be unclean; he must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening.

28 " 'When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. 29 On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 30 The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the LORD for the uncleanness of her discharge.

31 " 'You must keep the Israelites separate from things that make them unclean, so they will not die in their uncleanness for defiling my dwelling place, [a] which is among them.' "

32 These are the regulations for a man with a discharge, for anyone made unclean by an emission of semen, 33 for a woman in her monthly period, for a man or a woman with a discharge, and for a man who lies with a woman who is ceremonially unclean.




Leviticus 18:19 'Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.




Leviticus 18:22 22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
Eh, Neo Rogolia, are you a woman? If so, do you do all these things stated here? If not so, do you honestly wash yourself after you touched tyour wife in that time of month? Because if you don't, then your argument loses all of its credibility.
And I take it you're back from church again, so could you now maybe explain why only some parts (the mixed fabric part for instance) of the old testament are no longer applicable? That would be very kind of you :)

Wow, you're basically saying that every homosexual can be spotted from a mile off. I only wish this was true, then I'd have a much higher chance of finding a boyfriend :)
Anyway, I think you yourself realise that what you're saying is discriminating. I for one have never raped anyone (big prejudice against homosexuals) nor done drugs (another one), therefore your statement can't be true.
You said that you don't need to know from a mile off who people are sleeping with, but these people might want you to know. Being homosexual is a rather tricky thing, you see. You never know if the person you like has the same sexual preference as you do, therefore letting them know by means of speech and/or tread enables you to find a mate. Ever thought of it that way? Probably not, since heterosexuals generally presume the whole world is heterosexual and don't think what it must be like to be homosexual.
As for the gay pride parade: yes, it's confrontational, but it's meant that way. And don't you think the million man march was just as confrontational in the time it was held?
I hope that I have done my bit presenting the right image of a homosexual to you.


1. "Being homosexual does not equate being gay" Did you read that part?

2. I never stated any stereotypes for which homosexuals or gays were guilty and frankly I have never heard of those two, If I did I did'nt take them seriously. I realise that just about every minority has been accused for having a propensity for abusing drugs at one time or another. But the truth is early in gay culture a lot of them did use drugs because they were forced to operate undergound, Sometimes addicts who otherwise were'nt gay did favors for drugs, sad but true. I've been told about this sub-culture by people who were there. Not to mention plenty of media on the subject. I also dont think any adult is too worried about getting raped by effeminate men.
3. I know, I am rather sexy, ;), but Im not refering to instances in the club or non-obscene (or at least private) gay parties, or even known mixed parties, I am refering to instances in public. I think it is rude and rather slutty to flaunt your sexuality in public. I dont respect underdressed women who walk down the street and women when come on too strong It is rather uncomfortable. Most women dont do this. And guys who hoot and hollar at women they dont know are rather low class in my book.
4. Do you think you could organize a million gays to march on Washington and not embarrass (or at lest misrepresent) respectable homosexuals? I dont think that many gays in close proximity could control themselves, not from what I,ve seen at other much smaller "get togethers" If so then I'll rethink my stance.
5. And I think you have presented one image, mabye of a segmant of the homosexual population, but I was trying to convey my reservations for gays, and not all homosexuals.

Eh, Neo Rogolia, are you a woman? If so, do you do all these things stated here? If not so, do you honestly wash yourself after you touched tyour wife in that time of month? Because if you don't, then your argument loses all of its credibility.
And I take it you're back from church again, so could you now maybe explain why only some parts (the mixed fabric part for instance) of the old testament are no longer applicable? That would be very kind of you


Yes, I'm a woman, no I don't do this, and Christ established a new law which became effective when he died on the cross and abolished the old law. Why am I quoting the old law then you say? Because somehow we got on the topic of it.

Yes, I'm a woman, no I don't do this, and Christ established a new law which became effective when he died on the cross and abolished the old law. Why am I quoting the old law then you say? Because somehow we got on the topic of it.
Christ modified methods of salvation ... not nessisarily all law ... where in the NT is it clear that all old law is debunked?

Christ modified methods of salvation ... not nessisarily all law ... where in the NT is it clear that all old law is debunked?


Time for evening church services, I'll work on getting some verses while I'm there.

I'm bush like. Can you imagine two women engaged in sexual intercourse. Rubbing their hands all over each other, sleeping in the same bed? Its just plain wrong. Sex is evil I assure you I have never done anything like that with my wife. Sh*t laurens gunna kill me. Da*n it! Well anyway I say its wrong, and I'm the president. I got elected two times b*tch. Thats more than you. What I say goes, and I say is no gay marriage. Marriage is evil, Sh*t I mean gays. Its just plain wrong. You know. Right mary kary.

Luke 10:16 Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.

You know what's funny about that passage? Jesus said it to a group of seventy men he sent out to those places he wished to go and he told them to bless towns they were welcome in and threaten those they weren't, not a thing about deciding the actual doctrine of Christianity. If you are going to try and use the Bible to defend your statements make sure to actually use the ones that have actual relevance. Also at that time Paul was still Saul and hated Christians.

I'm bush like.

That doesn't make the least bit of sense. I am bush like? What are you a shrub?

1. "Being homosexual does not equate being gay" Did you read that part?

2. I never stated any stereotypes for which homosexuals or gays were guilty and frankly I have never heard of those two, If I did I did'nt take them seriously. I realise that just about every minority has been accused for having a propensity for abusing drugs at one time or another. But the truth is early in gay culture a lot of them did use drugs because they were forced to operate undergound, Sometimes addicts who otherwise were'nt gay did favors for drugs, sad but true. I've been told about this sub-culture by people who were there. Not to mention plenty of media on the subject. I also dont think any adult is too worried about getting raped by effeminate men.
3. I know, I am rather sexy, ;), but Im not refering to instances in the club or non-obscene (or at least private) gay parties, or even known mixed parties, I am refering to instances in public. I think it is rude and rather slutty to flaunt your sexuality in public. I dont respect underdressed women who walk down the street and women when come on too strong It is rather uncomfortable. Most women dont do this. And guys who hoot and hollar at women they dont know are rather low class in my book.
4. Do you think you could organize a million gays to march on Washington and not embarrass (or at lest misrepresent) respectable homosexuals? I dont think that many gays in close proximity could control themselves, not from what I,ve seen at other much smaller "get togethers" If so then I'll rethink my stance.
5. And I think you have presented one image, mabye of a segmant of the homosexual population, but I was trying to convey my reservations for gays, and not all homosexuals.

1. Yes, I did read it but forgot to reply to it. You know, I think those mannerisms you are refering to aren't always displayed by choice. When I was a child, I was your typical homo; a very talented danser, girl like voice, always hung out with girls, flappy hands, fine build, good at singing and acting, sensitive, you get the picture. The strange thing was that there was no gay role model around me for miles. My dad is your average red-blooded (I always wonder what colour my blood must have then :) ) heterosexual sports fan and I lived in a neighbourhood filled with those guys. Where had I gotten it from then? I still wonder. I think though that I was born that way. Anyway, the strange thing is that nowadays people can't tell I'm gay by looking at me anymore, while now is when I need it :). Wether I learned to not behave this way or grew out of it I don't know. I'd like to see that researched though.
2. I am of course aware of where these stereotypical images came from. That does however not make them applicable to everyone.
3. Well, lucky you for being sexy ;). I was also refering to behaviour displayed in public. I can see you have a problem with any type of sexually inspired behaviour, which takes us to a discussion about decency. However, if we are talking about the aforementioned mannerisms, I can't agree on it being the same. There are also heterosexual men who have these mannerisms, but who would rather not have them, for obvious reasons. Would these heterosexual men make you feel uncomfortable as well?
4. I think we difer in opinion about what a respectable homosexual is. I do not find a homosexual dressed as a woman any less respectable than a homosexual not dressed as a woman. I'd rather find the first more respectable for having the nerve to dress in such a vulnerable manner.
If you do choose to view one portion of the homosexuals as unrespectable, then you must know that they are still part of the group. Now wouldn't it be kind of hypocrite to let someone select which homosexual should go on the march or not? It's probably illegal too since every person has a right to demonstrate or walk on the street the demonstration is being held on.
5. Well thank you for the compliment. I do understand the difference you between gays and homosexuals you are talking about. I actually have to admit I feel the same way, only then about heterosexual men. You have your average, respectable heterosexual and then there is the kind that looks under every skirt and asks you if you'd do her too. I think I find that behaviour similarly antisocial as you find that of some homosexuals. However, I do not let that spoil it for the rest of the heterosexual population. I wonder why this doesn't work the other way around.

Actually, just the old >>LAW<<. Most of the OT involves history instead of laws.
Ok then... the old >>LAW<< that said that homosexuality was evil is gone now. That is,
IF there is a God,
IF that God is the Judeo-Christian God,
IF the OT and NT are accurate descriptions of Him and His will,
and IF you are interpreting it correctly, and it wasn't actually "eww, menstrual blood is gross!".

Actually, the passage does say that lying with a woman on her monthly is unclean. It mentions that seperately from lying with a man. Nice try.
Leviticus 18:22 22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
Are you making up quotes? The Bible uses the term "abomination" does it not? And it doesn't include the term "sexual relations".

Have you not read this thread? I've already said that the old law was abolished when Jesus died on the cross. WHich means that I can wear cotton and wool together, thank you very much.
So why is cotton + wool not a sin, but homosexuality is?

I certainly wouldn't mind if they reinstated the sodomy laws.
So you are hateful! Point proven.

Fact is, America is not a theocracy, so you can't just ban things because they are a sin in the Bible.

So I hear you love Republicans; who would Jesus bomb?

Read the verses I posted on apostolic authority that Christ granted. We must accept what they say, no matter how much we dislike it.
I've read the new testament and I have never seen anywhere that Jesus endorses anti-poor policies.

Amen on the divorce part. The church I attend adamantly opposes divorce for reasons other than adultery, just as Christ did.
So why have you accepted that banning divorce by law is a sick pipe dream, but banning homosexuality is not?

I'm bush like. Can you imagine two women engaged in sexual intercourse. Rubbing their hands all over each other, sleeping in the same bed? Its just plain wrong. Sex is evil I assure you I have never done anything like that with my wife. Sh*t laurens gunna kill me. Da*n it! Well anyway I say its wrong, and I'm the president. I got elected two times b*tch. Thats more than you. What I say goes, and I say is no gay marriage. Marriage is evil, Sh*t I mean gays. Its just plain wrong. You know. Right mary kary.
Funny!

So you feel justified for bitching about gays who act feminin or cross-dress? How would you feel about gays who're disgusted by men who act masculine? Would you think they were justified as well? Double standards are fuck-awesome aren't they mate?

Yeah! When people with identity issues try to enact legislation I do feel justified in raising objections.

Speaking of which, the bulk of crossdressers aren't homosexuals. They're 110% hetero.

Whatever.

Pride parades etc. cater to just as many hetero's as it does homo's. If you don't like it, ignore it. You live in a vast country, surely you can avoid them if you wish. Or do you just get a kick from flaunting your double standards?
BEcause that's what it is. Otherwise gays should be outraged over the straight society. Anarchists should terrorise the 4th of Juli. Religious people should be running around trying to sabotage eachothers hollidays and parades etc. etc...
You live in a multi-cultural society. Get used to it.

I also live in a representitive democracy, And I have yet to see one gay senator. You know what? If I saw a respectable homosexual senator on the ballot and they represented a majority of homosexuals, and if I felt that they they represented me better than any other candidate and did'nt tout their sexuality every chance they they had I'd probably vote for them. I would feel confident that they would have the class to go about anti-discrimination legislation in a responsible manner.

And why should marriage only be for people who act a certain way? If you're gonna be that radical about it, only followers of certain religions should be allowed to marry... Or are you just prejudiced against homo's and bi's?
And! Femi-gays are a minute minority. The vast majority of gays are every bit as masculine as anyone else. Or did you think the US had 15 million crossdressing homo's running around in high heels?! ...Nuts.

Radical, me? :eek: I dont think that the state should even be involved, I would prefer to have the state recognize religious marriage vows, but also allow civil unions for anybody as a secular option. That way if you want to get "married" form a church, get it recognized by the state,(Im sure 15 million homos in high heels(jk) are enough people, actually I think all it takes is 11), and preform cerimonies. But dont demand that anyone elses religion change so you can have a white wedding in their church.
I dont think I said anything against homos or bi's if I did I'm sorry. I was bitching about gays, (you know, the lifestyle?) You know you guys have a lot of sub-groups? Its very schizimatic, and not having coherent representation does'nt help your cause either. I'ts like I hear of some new splinter fetish group every day. Are those fluffies affilated yet? You know, the ones who dress up in stuffed animal suits and then somehow manage to have orgies?(that must get hot!)
So get the femi-gays (or whatever the latetest label is, I lose track.)

Obviously the guy is a homo. But why do you think he has issues? Is it because he isn't turned on by pussy? Surely you have issues too then, because from your posting, it's quite clear you are repulsed by the thought of a big hard dick in your mouth.

Because he said:"I think the ideas of heterosexual sex and lesbian sex is rather disgusting, but I don't hate them because of it..I just don't waste my time thinking about it!" And I dont think that it is healthy for individuals to be disgusted by their sexuality, if it was insensitive I apologize.
See. Why do you have to result to vulgarity? I think that most straight women would be repulsed by that as you posted it. And yes I am repulsed by that idea.

The only difference between you two is he doesn't want to limit your behaviour. He thinks it's perfectly natural for you to persue whatever genitals you like. Sure, he can't relate, but he doesn't want to limit your behaviour or hamper your persuit of happiness.
I think you're far far more of a hypocrite than any other single poster in this thread.

Well,I dont go out of my way to elucidate what genitals I prefer when it is'nt the topic of discussion.
As far a my being a hypocrit, I've learned a few things in this thread, and I am not too proud to change my oninion when confronted with a good argument. Im sorry, but I'm not pigheaded in my views, although I will fervently defend what views I have, The most important thing for me is that I learn from other peoples perspectives in the process of debate.

Are you making up quotes? The Bible uses the term "abomination" does it not? And it doesn't include the term "sexual relations".


Yeah, I was using the default translation that time which I >>think<< is NIV. I usually use either NKJV KJV.



So why is cotton + wool not a sin, but homosexuality is?


Because, as I've stated at least 4 times, it's condemned in Romans 1.



So you are hateful! Point proven.

Fact is, America is not a theocracy, so you can't just ban things because they are a sin in the Bible.

So I hear you love Republicans; who would Jesus bomb?


Does my support of banning narcotics mean I hate drug users? Same case here.


I've read the new testament and I have never seen anywhere that Jesus endorses anti-poor policies.


....what?



So why have you accepted that banning divorce by law is a sick pipe dream, but banning homosexuality is not?


Because of all the hypocritical Christians who get divorces for causes not justified by Christ making it impossible?

Ok then... the old >>LAW<< that said that homosexuality was evil is gone now. That is,
IF there is a God,
IF that God is the Judeo-Christian God,
IF the OT and NT are accurate descriptions of Him and His will,
and IF you are interpreting it correctly, and it wasn't actually "eww, menstrual blood is gross!".


And the new law condemns it ;)

And the new law condemns it ;)
Which new law is that?
Maybe you have already posted about this and don't feel like explaining it yet another time. Could you them maybe provide me with a link so I can read up on what you believe? Thanx.

....


Because of all the hypocritical Christians who get divorces for causes not justified by Christ making it impossible?

Yes people like me, who who get divorced because of husbands who hit us. Great point you got there.

Yes people like me, who who get divorced because of husbands who hit us. Great point you got there.
Hey, read your Bible! Women are supposed to submit, and husbands are supposed to punish them if they don't. Women are property, and any woman who isn't willing to admit as much deserves humiliation, beatings, rape, and being stoned to death. The Christian God specifically orders his followers to rape and abuse women in many passages of the Bible, and often admonishes women to shut up and take it.

Yay for closed minds!
It's just that this specific point is a personal belief of mine that isn't going to be changed, because there aren't facts or statistics or historical precedents to disprove the fact that I think it's a dumb idea to change words that old.

It is not a federal definition... that's what the Marriage Protection Act is trying to change. Currently, it's up to the states whether or not to grant gay marriage. That means that it's not a universal definition. I was wrong about DOMA though... sorry about that. Doesn't change the fact that it's not a universal legal definition though.
Yeah it is, the second clause of DOMA defines marriage as a being between a man and a woman. They just say that states are allowed to recognize gay marriages that are already in existence.

"Most countries". Ok, so how does that make it universal, if it's "most countries"? All change has to start somewhere. In this case, not here, as other countries that you'd probably find disgustingly liberal such as the Netherlands have already legalized gay unions (in Holland, civil and religious marriages are totally separate, with the civil marriage granting all of the legal rights, so that churches can disallow gay marriage if they want).
Don't chop up what I said, I clarified that it's nearly it is nearly global, not global. But the only reason it isn't global is because many countries with certain more liberal tendencies are changing it to be that way.

Ok, if you make a civil union type thing with the fully rights and privileges of marriage then I might agree with you.
Which is all I'm saying.

For most people it isn't an issue of the word, it's an issue of the rights.
Actually, it is, many homosexuals say they feel second class because the government won't let them change the definition. Which I think is just being whiny.
However, right now civil unions have maybe a quarter of the rights of a marriage. Right now, they do not have equal rights. To say that they have the right to marry the opposite sex just like everyone else is a flawed argument. Consider this fairly analogous one to show why we "don't need separation of church and state": "Well, Muslims have the right to follow Christianity just like Christians have the right to follow Christianity, so I really don't get what they're all hot and bothered about... I mean really! Christianity has been around for thousands of years, and now they want to practice Islam? Rediculous!" [/sarcasm]. It's not an equal right if they have to do exactly what you do.
Actually, that whole Christianity analogy doesn't really work. Because muslims wouldn't be choosing to become christian, they'd be forced to. On the other hand, homosexuals are choosing to push for marriage, instead of civil unions.

Hey, read your Bible! Women are supposed to submit, and husbands are supposed to punish them if they don't. Women are property, and any woman who isn't willing to admit as much deserves humiliation, beatings, rape, and being stoned to death. The Christian God specifically orders his followers to rape and abuse women in many passages of the Bible, and often admonishes women to shut up and take it.


I love your wonderful distortion of reality. Charming.

Yes people like me, who who get divorced because of husbands who hit us. Great point you got there.



Perhaps you could have considered just having him arrested without divorce? Regardless, I can understand why....I suppose it would take the most devout Christian to stay with an abusive husband.....

And the new law condemns it ;)
Still subject to the same rules
That the god of the christians exists and you are interpreting it correctly

Either way your faith should not effect me (at least activly ... its damn neer impossable if not compleatly impossable to COMPLEATLY elimminate effect in a closed system)
IF it does expect a fight
If you try to use your religion to cull my choices that do not hurt others

Expect a fight where I will use every essance of my being to fight back.

Still subject to the same rules
That the god of the christians exists and you are interpreting it correctly

Either way your faith should not effect me (at least activly ... its damn neer impossable if not compleatly impossable to COMPLEATLY elimminate effect in a closed system)
IF it does expect a fight
If you try to use your religion to cull my choices that do not hurt others

Expect a fight where I will use every essance of my being to fight back.


We're not the one trying to change a centuries-old system of marriage. So, it is you whose desire for pseudo-egalitarianism is affecting us. Which is why we will put up a tough fight to block it :) (Hey, at least we can agree that we disagree! :D )

We're not the one trying to change a centuries-old system of marriage. So, it is you whose desire for pseudo-egalitarianism is affecting us. Which is why we will put up a tough fight to block it :) (Hey, at least we can agree that we disagree! :D )
Our having the same rights in no way effects your religous marrige

Christianity did not start the system of marrige and I do not recognize their right to define what marrige is and is not

Giving me the freedom to marry any adult I wish absolutly does not effect your freedoms

Our having the same rights in no way effects your religous marrige

Christianity did not start the system of marrige and I do not recognize their right to define what marrige is and is not

Giving me the freedom to marry any adult I wish absolutly does not effect your freedoms


Why should we recognize as legitimate something we view as a sin? Legalizing gay marriage is the equivalent of saying that homosexuality is perfectly acceptable, which, to Christians like me, is not.

Neo Rogolia, I think you need to see

http://grove.ufl.edu/~ggsa/pdf_docs/straightbrochure.pdfthis (http://grove.ufl.edu/~ggsa/pdf_docs/straightbrochure.pdf).

Why should we recognize as legitimate something we view as a sin? Legalizing gay marriage is the equivalent of saying that homosexuality is perfectly acceptable, which, to Christians like me, is not.

Legalizing gay marriage shouldn't have to do with whether or not Christians view homosexuality as a sin.

Why should we recognize as legitimate something we view as a sin? Legalizing gay marriage is the equivalent of saying that homosexuality is perfectly acceptable, which, to Christians like me, is not.
Which is fine with your choice of religon

But others do not recognize that ... and marrige is much more then a religous cerimony right now being married has civil and legal benifits and costs
If I choose to take on that legal status I should be alowed to ...with any adult

You have every right in christianity in determining what you think a christian marrige can and cant be

But legaly you have absolutly no leg to stand on

Adobe keeps crashing on my PC, do you have a non-PDF version?

Romans 1...pretty precise.

Really? You read ancient Greek and know the meanings of words that weren't well known even in the time at which they were being used?

Holy shit! You really are infallible!



You are horribly incorrect. Whatever English translation of a translation you are looking at may seem incredibly precise to you - but it is not the original text.

Adobe keeps crashing on my PC, do you have a non-PDF version?

Sorry, no.

Its just a brochure about coming out as a hetrosexual, and although you may feel different or ashamed, its ok to be yourself.

Read the verses I posted on apostolic authority that Christ granted. We must accept what they say, no matter how much we dislike it.

Bullshit. First of all, none of those verses specifically state apostolic authority. They suggest it if you interpret it that way. Secondly, those verses were written by the people who stood to benefit from being called infallible.

If I wrote a book that said Christ told me I was infallible, would you believe it automatically?

Seriously, though. I thought the goal was to have faith in God, not in human beings.

Leviticus 18:22 22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

You read Hebrew yourself?

If not, you have lost all credibility.

Meanwhile, having talked to someone who can read Hebrew - the text that you have quoted right there, from the Hebrew, can be translated as a prohibition against lying with a woman who is menstruating.

Interestingly enough, as that is mentioned elsewhere in the law, it fits in quite well with Hebrew philosophy.

Perhaps you could have considered just having him arrested without divorce? Regardless, I can understand why....I suppose it would take the most devout Christian to stay with an abusive husband.....
A devout christian with a shorter than average life span. Or I could divorce him, remarry and provide my son with a competent father figure.

As long as we're talking about what Jesus said here's one of my favorites

Matthew 5:28 - But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

I love the implication of the woman's guilt.

But Paul is even better. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

This is the authority many people site for banning gay marriage. A book full of obsolete values that no one follows entirely. But you have to admit the 10 commandments are nice.

Any one who wants to read the parts of the Bible the believers like to ignore, you should pick up a copy of Ken's Guide to the Bible, by Ken Smith.

Yeah, I was using the default translation that time which I >>think<< is NIV. I usually use either NKJV KJV.

Are you serious?

You normally use NKJV or KJV?

KJV is objectively the worst possibly translation. It is a translation of a translation of a translation commissioned by a king who would behead the translators if they included anything he didn't like. Yippee!

Perhaps you could have considered just having him arrested without divorce? Regardless, I can understand why....I suppose it would take the most devout Christian to stay with an abusive husband.....
Seriously, how dare you say that? Is nothing beneath you?

Matthew 5:28 - But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

I love the implication of the woman's guilt.

But Paul is even better. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

This is the authority many people site for banning gay marriage. A book full of obsolete values that no one follows entirely. But you have to admit the 10 commandments are nice.

Any one who wants to read the parts of the Bible the believers like to ignore, you should pick up a copy of Ken's Guide to the Bible, by Ken Smith.



....this may come as a suprise to you, but we follow those doctrines. Also


]Matthew 5:28 - But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

I love the implication of the woman's guilt.


is wrong. It implies the man's guilt if anything.

Seriously, how dare you say that? Is nothing beneath you?


Take it up with Christ if you have issues...

Bullshit. First of all, none of those verses specifically state apostolic authority. They suggest it if you interpret it that way. Secondly, those verses were written by the people who stood to benefit from being called infallible.

If I wrote a book that said Christ told me I was infallible, would you believe it automatically?

Seriously, though. I thought the goal was to have faith in God, not in human beings.


And, assuming God gave them authority, would it not be required to trust in those whom God has ordained as ministers of His will?

And, assuming God gave them authority, would it not be required to trust in those whom God has ordained as ministers of His will?
The bible says have faith in god ... not thoes who claim to be from god (weather what they claim is true or not)

Are you serious?

You normally use NKJV or KJV?

KJV is objectively the worst possibly translation. It is a translation of a translation of a translation commissioned by a king who would behead the translators if they included anything he didn't like. Yippee!
As I recall King James liked angels alot and add them in where none existed in earlier translations.

Take it up with Christ if you have issues...
I plan to if he exists

The bible says have faith in god ... not thoes who claim to be from god (weather what they claim is true or not)


If God/Christ Himself confers authority upon a man, with the instructions to obey them, then....wouldn't you obey them?

If God/Christ Himself confers authority upon a man, with the instructions to obey them, then....wouldn't you obey them?
Only if I believed in christ ... which I dont so no
To me it is a man claiming to be sent from god then attepting to give power based on that un verified claim

1.....this may come as a suprise to you, but we follow those doctrines. Also





2. is wrong. It implies the man's guilt if anything.

1. Wait humor me. You attend a church where it is disgraceful for women to speak while they are in church? Cool.

2. the man's guilt is explicit, a woman's is implicit. Jesus isn't say that "he has commited adultery" his words imply a woman's complicity. She is involved.

Take it up with Christ if you have issues...

Where exactly did Christ say "Stay with your abusive husband. If he kills you and your children, you are a good Christian." I seem to have missed that verse.


And, assuming God gave them authority, would it not be required to trust in those whom God has ordained as ministers of His will?

Why make that assumption? Shouldn't you ask for God's guidance on that?

Meanwhile, whether God ordained them is irrelevant. Throughout the Bible, we see those ordained by God making mistakes. Why? They are human beings and are thus fallible! As such, anything written by man must be taken as a guide - but only if God's personal guidance meshes with it. Sometimes, the teachings of Paul do not mesh with the guidance I receive through prayer.

Are you serious?

You normally use NKJV or KJV?

KJV is objectively the worst possibly translation. It is a translation of a translation of a translation commissioned by a king who would behead the translators if they included anything he didn't like. Yippee!



Actually, NKJV is pretty reliable. Here is the translation of an excerpt from Romans 1 from multiple translations:


(NIV) 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.



(NAS) 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, (AX)men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.



(NLT) 26That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. 27And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved.



(CEV) God let them follow their own evil desires. Women no longer wanted to have sex in a natural way, and they did things with each other that were not natural. 27Men behaved in the same way. They stopped wanting to have sex with women and had strong desires for sex with other men. They did shameful things with each other, and what has happened to them is punishment for their foolish deeds.



(ESV) 26For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.


(ASV) For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due.


(YLT) Because of this did God give them up to dishonourable affections, for even their females did change the natural use into that against nature;

27and in like manner also the males having left the natural use of the female, did burn in their longing toward one another; males with males working shame, and the recompense of their error that was fit, in themselves receiving.



And here is the original Greek: http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B45C001.htm

Where exactly did Christ say "Stay with your abusive husband. If he kills you and your children, you are a good Christian." I seem to have missed that verse.




Matthew 19:1-10 1 Now it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these sayings, that He departed from Galilee and came to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. 2And great multitudes followed Him, and He healed them there.
3The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?"

4And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made[a] them at the beginning "made them male and female,'[b] 5and said, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?[c] 6So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."

7They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?"

8He said to them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality,[d] and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery."

10His disciples said to Him, "If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry."

Why make that assumption? Shouldn't you ask for God's guidance on that?

Meanwhile, whether God ordained them is irrelevant. Throughout the Bible, we see those ordained by God making mistakes. Why? They are human beings and are thus fallible! As such, anything written by man must be taken as a guide - but only if God's personal guidance meshes with it. Sometimes, the teachings of Paul do not mesh with the guidance I receive through prayer.



Ah, but those who were ordained prior to the apostles were not given authority to make law that would last until kingdom come. You would think God would be a bit careful with allowing the apostles to say what they did then, no?

Ah, but those who were ordained prior to the apostles were not given authority to make law that would last until kingdom come. You would think God would be a bit careful with allowing the apostles to say what they did then, no?
Do women speak in church where you attend? I'd honestly like to know.

Do women speak in church where you attend? I'd honestly like to know.


Nope, God's will supercedes ours :)

But before the whole divorce thing, the marriage itself must be first sanctified by God. Marriages which are not blessed and accepted by God can go anywhere - including divorce.

"Then let not that which has been joined by God be parted by man." Matthew 19:6

Not all marriages are joined by God.

I wish I could say that I had taken the time to read all fifty pages of these posts, but frankly it is a bit overwhelming. The only continuity I am picking up on is the continuous (and cowardly) referencing of religion. You are so concerned with what God said, or you say "take it up with Jesus." Some of you quote sections of multiple translations of the Bible.

Without even taking a stance on this issue (although I clearly do anyway), I could ask you:

Unless you live in a theocratic nation (overtly or otherwise) where marriage truly is the sole property of the church, what business do you have waving around your misplaced righteousness under the noses of decent people in love? In many civilized nations, as far as the government is concerned, marriage is a CIVIL and FINANCIAL union. It should have absolutely nothing to do with sanctity, holiness, or simply what YOU find distasteful.

So I say, let the Christians throw the gays out of their churches. Fine, it's your church, so persecute whoever you want. But stay the hell out of the government. If a same-sex couple decides to reap the benefits (emotional or economical) of marriage, then who the hell are you or your God to get in their way?

then who the hell are you or your God to get in their way?



It would have been a valid statement if you left the "your God" out of it. Now you just have me sighing at the utter ignorance of it.

But before the whole divorce thing, the marriage itself must be first sanctified by God. Marriages which are not blessed and accepted by God can go anywhere - including divorce.

"Then let not that which has been joined by God be parted by man." Matthew 19:6

Not all marriages are joined by God.



That's true, but I think we're assuming the marriage is sanctified.....at least I am....is everyone else?

That's true, but I think we're assuming the marriage is sanctified.....at least I am....is everyone else?

I think some are, if you first look to God for advice. But let us forget that marriage is also a human concept today - which means there is a number of them which are not sanctified. And those marriages can be divorced because they are not bound by God.

I think some are, if you first look to God for advice. But let us forget that marriage is also a human concept today - which means there is a number of them which are not sanctified. And those marriages can be divorced because they are not bound by God.




Yeah, I concede on that point.

Take it up with Christ if you have issues...
Where did Christ say you have to be insensitive? I mean "I suppose it would take the most devout Christian to stay with an abusive husband....."
You don't even know this woman, nor what she has been through and you claim she is not a devout Christian? That to me sounds like being unkind to your neighbour. You know, it's one thing to be unkind about a big, anonymous group, but another to say that flat out to someones face.
You know the bible, so you must know the story about the prostitute that washed Jesus' feet. Did he tell her she was an undevout believer? Did he insult her without even knowing her full story? No, he forgave her for her sins, no questions asked. Why don't you take that as an example for once?

SNIP...
So I say, let the Christians throw the gays out of their churches. Fine, it's your church, so persecute whoever you want. But stay the hell out of the government. If a same-sex couple decides to reap the benefits (emotional or economical) of marriage, then who the hell are you or your God to get in their way?
I'll take a stance. Given that Homosexuals are people, that science provides ample evidence that people are born gay, straight or in between, given that toasters and sheep cannot sign a marriage certificate, and that God has no place in law, also that marriage is not a religious institution belonging to Christians, Hindus ect., I maintain that the current bans on same sex marriages are unjust and illegal..

Holy God, the Creator, sanctified marriage as the union between a man and a woman.

And your PROOF that Holy God is the Creator is?

And your PROOF that He/She sanctified marriage in a manner pleasing to you?

And, even so, with the Freedom of Religion guarantees of the First amendment, also comes a freedom FROM religion, if that is what one wants.
Why must you insist on YOUR religion being the one that informs CIVIL LAW...when clearly the Founding Fathers did not intend for ANY ONE RELIGION to inform civil law, or to be endorsed by the Federal Government of the United States?

Better yet...why can't you religious zealots get OVER yourselves, and recognize that others might like to have the same rights you take for granted...and the ability to a happy, legal, fulfilling relationship WITH A PERSON THEY TRULY LOVE?

How does it hurt YOU to allow THEM to be happy? Why must you insist that YOUR way...YOUR religion, YOUR traditions are the ONLY correct ones, and that all others must be discounted out of hand, just because they make YOU uncomfortable?

Why must you insist on denying others true happiness in their lives? could it be that you have yet to find true happiness in your own...and you're damned if anyone else should have it since you don't?

What gives?