NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, and I do so by living a life according to the teachings of Jesus. Not be shouting down the sinners. Allowing them to see the happy and healthy life I live is the clearest and cleanest preaching I can do. I don't have to shout at them that I'm a Christian and that my way of living is better. I let them see what I am and what I do and judge for themselves. And when they ask me about God or about sin I don't try to convince them citing chapter and verse. I am not their preist. Jesus came and replaced all preists. Jesus is their conduit and he writes on their heart. I simply ask them to read their heart and they will receive the word. Jesus wasn't successful at converting so many because he could heal wounds or make water into wine. Those are just magic tricks. Jesus was successful because he let them see who he was and those that have eyes could see.

:fluffle:

I knew there was a reason I didn't really not like you. hehe.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0718/csmimg/marriage.pdf#search='divorce%20rates%20in%20US'

Yes, and I do so by living a life according to the teachings of Jesus. Not be shouting down the sinners. Allowing them to see the happy and healthy life I live is the clearest and cleanest preaching I can do. I don't have to shout at them that I'm a Christian and that my way of living is better. I let them see what I am and what I do and judge for themselves. And when they ask me about God or about sin I don't try to convince them citing chapter and verse. I am not their preist. Jesus came and replaced all preists. Jesus is their conduit and he writes on their heart. I simply ask them to read their heart and they will receive the word. Jesus wasn't successful at converting so many because he could heal wounds or make water into wine. Those are just magic tricks. Jesus was successful because he let them see who he was and those that eyes could see.
And admirable approach to life. And I do the same. Being a good example is much more pursuasive than threatning people.

I think the problem is that fanatic people believe others were born with their beliefs, but scrapped them as they matured. Thus, they have some insane vengeance thing going on, because they see a lot of people living happy productive lives, bettering not just themselves, but the society around them.. And those people have rejected the fundamentalist (i)rationale.

If I'm correct, I can - at least somewhat - appreciate the hatred the fundies have.
Still, I'll continue to be the best human being I can be. Perhaps a few fundies will notice something that will spark a change in them.

The study suggests that both cohabitations and marriages tend to last longer under certain conditions, such as: a woman’s age at the time cohabitation or marriage began; whether she was raised throughout childhood in an intact 2-parent family; whether religion plays an important role in her life; and whether she had a higher family income or lived in a community with high median family income, low male unemployment, and low poverty.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/02news/div_mar_cohab.htm

And admirable approach to life. And I do the same. Being a good example is much more pursuasive than threatning people.

I think the problem is that fanatic people believe others were born with their beliefs, but scrapped them as they matured. Thus, they have some insane vengeance thing going on, because they see a lot of people living happy productive lives, bettering not just themselves, but the society around them.. And those people have rejected the fundamentalist (i)rationale.

If I'm correct, I can - at least somewhat - appreciate the hatred the fundies have.
Still, I'll continue to be the best human being I can be. Perhaps a few fundies will notice something that will spark a change in them.

Good luck.
the problem is...the fundies have God in their head...but not in their HEART.

Bigoted homophobia? I've already stated many times that I hate no one. I'm beginning to think that the entire strategy the pro-gay camp employs is the vilification of their opponents, be it true or false :rolleyes:

real smooth funny how you failed to answer any point i actually posed.

You have stated several times that "I don't have a problem with gay people but god does" Thats what I see ashiding behind your religion. This is beside the point so are you going to answer my previous post or not?

And admirable approach to life. And I do the same. Being a good example is much more pursuasive than threatning people.

I think the problem is that fanatic people believe others were born with their beliefs, but scrapped them as they matured. Thus, they have some insane vengeance thing going on, because they see a lot of people living happy productive lives, bettering not just themselves, but the society around them.. And those people have rejected the fundamentalist (i)rationale.

If I'm correct, I can - at least somewhat - appreciate the hatred the fundies have.
Still, I'll continue to be the best human being I can be. Perhaps a few fundies will notice something that will spark a change in them.



Ah, the day you realize that I hate nobody is the day you will get past your narrow-minded view of my faith and learn what it means to be a true Christian.

real smooth funny how you failed to answer any point i actually posed.

You have stated several times that "I don't have a problem with gay people but god does" Thats what I see ashiding behind your religion. This is beside the point so are you going to answer my previous post or not?



Hiding behind my religion? If hiding behind my religion is adhering to its tenets, then I suppose so.

I am glad so many of you have made the above choice.

I believe you are entitled to your beliefs and they should be respected, but equally you cannot force those onto others.

And also very importantly religion, especially in a multi-cultural society, as most democracy's now are, should play no role in government.

As such I oppose the majority of the Abortion and Gay marriage laws in the US because they are motivated by religion, and one religions beliefs which they are now trying to force onto all through legislation.

Good luck.
the problem is...the fundies have God in their head...but not in their HEART.



Yes, the sinner who refuses to change her immoral ways has the right to determine where the fundamentalist Christians have their heart :rolleyes:

real smooth funny how you failed to answer any point i actually posed.

You have stated several times that "I don't have a problem with gay people but god does" Thats what I see ashiding behind your religion. This is beside the point so are you going to answer my previous post or not?


Neo has a way with trying to twist things to make herself sound like a martyr.

Neo: "I'm not infallible. I'm just always right!"
"I'm not a bigot. I just think we should treat homosexuals like second-class citizens so that they will realize that I am right and they are wrong."
"I'm not claiming the authority of God. But if I'm not right, then there is no God!"

Hiding behind my religion? If hiding behind my religion is adhering to its tenets, then I suppose so.

Tell you what I'll copy my question again.


The government does not recognize homosexual marriage as legitimate though, nor is it an issue of "equal rights"....and it will remain that way, because, if it were to change, it would lead to the collapse of many laws that differentiate between genders



I don't get it what laws would change? And why would it be detremental to society?

Neo has a way with trying to twist things to make herself sound like a martyr.

Neo: "I'm not infallible. I'm just always right!"
"I'm not a bigot. I just think we should treat homosexuals like second-class citizens so that they will realize that I am right and they are wrong."
"I'm not claiming the authority of God. But if I'm not right, then there is no God!"



You're actually right about the martyr part. I feel kind of like Stephen, preaching the truth and getting metaphorically stoned by those who don't want to hear it.

Luke 10:16 16He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me."

Ha, now you're one of the twelve disciples? You know what else he asked them to do? To not minister to the Gentiles or Samaritans. Do you only try to convert Jews?

Mathew 10:5 Jesus sent out these twelve 4 after instructing them thus, "Do not go into pagan territory or enter a Samaritan town.

And I suppose you must heal the sick and raise the dead as well, since you're being asked to follow the instructions given the disciples.

Mathew 10:7-8 As you go, make this proclamation: 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand.'
Cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, drive out demons. Without cost you have received; without cost you are to give.

I know it's important for you to believe that you are better than these people and that you know better than they do. Those that reject what you have to say do not reject Jesus. I hate to break it to you, but you don't have that power. It wasn't given to you.

Tell you what I'll copy my question again.






I don't get it what laws would change? And why would it be detremental to society?



Women aren't allowed on the front lines in combat, polygamy is illegal, etc.

Ha, now you're one of the twelve disciples? You know what else he asked them to do? To not minister to the Gentiles or Samaritans. Do you only try to convert Jews?

Mathew 10:5 Jesus sent out these twelve 4 after instructing them thus, "Do not go into pagan territory or enter a Samaritan town.

And I suppose you must heal the sick and raise the dead as well, since you're being asked to follow the instructions given the disciples.

Mathew 10:7-8 As you go, make this proclamation: 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand.'
Cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, drive out demons. Without cost you have received; without cost you are to give.

I know it's important for you to believe that you are better than these people and that you know better than they do. Those that reject what you have to say do not reject Jesus. I hate to break it to you, but you don't have that power. It wasn't given to you.


But Paul did have that power and authority as an apostle, and we all know what he had to say about homosexuality ;)

You're actually right about the martyr part. I feel kind of like Stephen, preaching the truth and getting metaphorically stoned by those who don't want to hear it.

Suddenly I've seen the light and am now sympathetic :rolleyes:

Ah, the day you realize that I hate nobody is the day you will get past your narrow-minded view of my faith and learn what it means to be a true Christian.

I didn't see your name mentioned there. Guilty conscience?

Women aren't allowed on the front lines in combat, polygamy is illegal, etc.

how is same sex marriage going to affect these two laws?

You're actually right about the martyr part. I feel kind of like Stephen, preaching the truth and getting metaphorically stoned by those who don't want to hear it.

Except, of course, for the fact that you are not preaching the truth.

I know it's important for you to believe that you are better than these people and that you know better than they do. Those that reject what you have to say do not reject Jesus. I hate to break it to you, but you don't have that power. It wasn't given to you.

Didn't you know? In Neo's own words - if her version of things is wrong, "all hope is lost."

I didn't see your name mentioned there. Guilty conscience?



He was referring to me, ask him yourself.

Yes, the sinner who refuses to change her immoral ways has the right to determine where the fundamentalist Christians have their heart :rolleyes:

And again we see PRIDE rear it's ugly head. See, this is specifically the problem. You say you're showing compassion and love, but where is it in the above? How did what you just said teach or preach about Jesus? You're not here to convert people. You're here to condemn and that is why you are getting the reception you are.

how is same sex marriage going to affect these two laws?

And I am left wondering, why is it a bad thing that we might get rid of discrimination against women in the military? And how are laws against polygamy "laws about gender"?

Except, of course, for the fact that you are not preaching the truth.



*checks the gospel and the epistles* According to these, I am :)

And again we see PRIDE rear it's ugly head. See, this is specifically the problem. You say you're showing compassion and love, but where is it in the above? How did what you just said teach or preach about Jesus? You're not here to convert people. You're here to condemn and that is why you are getting the reception you are.



That was irrelevant to the discussion, she was making a false assertion and I was calling her for the hypocrite she is.

Ah, the day you realize that I hate nobody is the day you will get past your narrow-minded view of my faith and learn what it means to be a true Christian.
Nero Rogolia, I will try to make this my last post aimed at you. I would appreciate it if you helped me by not addressing me again. Thank you.

Now to answer your bollox...

If I take a away your church, your right to care about your loved ones and what not, arguing that X told me to, and X is always correct, that I don't hate you but X do, and that you have no right to bitch about it, how will you percive me?

I already know you don't believe in X. You'll probably assume X is something I invented to justify MY feelings.

You'll probably think me quite insane if I actually believe X speaks to me

You'll not accept X can be truthful, even if you cannot actually demonstrate X isn't real.

You can only conclude that if X hates you, and X is always correct in my opinion, then I must naturally hate you as well.

Your assumptions will only be solidified when I refuse all arguments you can think of, rational or irrational.


If you switch out X for God, I for YOU, and YOU for I, then you have a very accurate description of both of us. You might also understand why I'm perfectly confident you're lying through your teeth when you tell me you don't hate people for their sexuality.
As such, you'll just have to deal with being evil & hateful. BEcause you are. Your own words prove it. That you're also a chickenshit who can't admit it just makes you even worse.

Women aren't allowed on the front lines in combat, polygamy is illegal, etc.

Polygamy? What does polygamy have to do with gender?

Apparently, you don't understand the term "percentage".

See, if 500 people marry in place A and 500000 people marry in place B - and then 250 divorces occur in A and 250000 divorces occur in B - they both have a 50% divorce rate!

Having a higher number of marriages does not change your divorce rate one bit.

2002, Marriage and divorces ~ latest I can find
Massachusetts Marriages per 1000 5.9 Divorces per 1000 2.5
Hawaii Marriages per 1000 20.7 Divorces per 1000 3.7

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/mar%26div.pdf

I don't see how that is so hard to understand...

That was irrelevant to the discussion, she was making a false assertion and I was calling her for the hypocrite she is.

And accusations are loving and compassionate, how?

And I am left wondering, why is it a bad thing that we might get rid of discrimination against women in the military? And how are laws against polygamy "laws about gender"?

hey I'm all for it. Army girls crawling around in mud. Supprised it isn't enforced ;)

And I am left wondering, why is it a bad thing that we might get rid of discrimination against women in the military? And how are laws against polygamy "laws about gender"?



1. We are not (in general) physically suited for combat. It's a fact, let those who are best at something do it, I say.

2. Because, if we allowed anyone who claimed "discrimination", even when it is not such, to have their way, then we would have to legalize polygamy and paedophilia, in the rare case where the child consents.

And accusations are loving and compassionate, how?



Accusation? She said herself that she won't change!

Didn't you know? In Neo's own words - if her version of things is wrong, "all hope is lost."
For her it may be

2002, Marriage and divorces ~ latest I can find
Massachusetts Marriages per 1000 5.9 Divorces per 1000 2.5
Hawaii Marriages per 1000 20.7 Divorces per 1000 3.7

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/mar%26div.pdf

I don't see how that is so hard to understand...

Ok, I see. So you are the one using divorce rates that make no sense and don't take marriage rates into account.

The only way a "divorce rate" makes any sense is if it is based on the number of marriages (ie. X% of all marriages end in divorce). Divorce rate as a percentage of the total population really doesn't tell you anything at all.

The numbers you are using could be inflated or deflated from people coming in/out of state. Do you know how many people probably marry in Hawii and then leave to other states (possibly divorcing later)? Do you know how many may marry in other states and then divorce in Mass?

He was referring to me, ask him yourself.
Actually, I was referring to people who make the sort of claims you do. Not you specifically, although you're right to take it to heart.

1. We are not (in general) physically suited for combat. It's a fact, let those who are best at something do it, I say.

2. Because, if we allowed anyone who claimed "discrimination", even when it is not such, to have their way, then we would have to legalize polygamy and paedophilia, in the rare case where the child consents.
A child is not able to concent ... there is a major difference
You must be at least able mentaly to make an informed decision ... children are not

and as to 1) what does the general averages have to do with thoes that are actualy suted for combat?

1. We are not (in general) physically suited for combat. It's a fact, let those who are best at something do it, I say.

2. Because, if we allowed anyone who claimed "discrimination", even when it is not such, to have their way, then we would have to legalize polygamy and paedophilia, in the rare case where the child consents.

Yay for men being more physically suited to get shot...wait DAMN IT!

Nero Rogolia, I will try to make this my last post aimed at you. I would appreciate it if you helped me by not addressing me again. Thank you.

Now to answer your bollox...

If I take a away your church, your right to care about your loved ones and what not, arguing that X told me to, and X is always correct, that I don't hate you but X do, and that you have no right to bitch about it, how will you percive me?

I already know you don't believe in X. You'll probably assume X is something I invented to justify MY feelings.

You'll probably think me quite insane if I actually believe X speaks to me

You'll not accept X can be truthful, even if you cannot actually demonstrate X isn't real.

You can only conclude that if X hates you, and X is always correct in my opinion, then I must naturally hate you as well.

Your assumptions will only be solidified when I refuse all arguments you can think of, rational or irrational.


If you switch out X for God, I for YOU, and YOU for I, then you have a very accurate description of both of us. You might also understand why I'm perfectly confident you're lying through your teeth when you tell me you don't hate people for their sexuality.
As such, you'll just have to deal with being evil & hateful. BEcause you are. Your own words prove it. That you're also a chickenshit who can't admit it just makes you even worse.


Please refrain from flaming me :)

2002, Marriage and divorces ~ latest I can find
Massachusetts Marriages per 1000 5.9 Divorces per 1000 2.5
Hawaii Marriages per 1000 20.7 Divorces per 1000 3.7

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/mar%26div.pdf

I don't see how that is so hard to understand...

So mass has a divorce rate of about 45 %

Hawiaii has under 20%

simple yes?

Ok, I see. So you are the one using divorce rates that make no sense and don't take marriage rates into account.

The only way a "divorce rate" makes any sense is if it is based on the number of marriages (ie. X% of all marriages end in divorce). Divorce rate as a percentage of the total population really doesn't tell you anything at all.

The numbers you are using could be inflated or deflated from people coming in/out of state. Do you know how many people probably marry in Hawii and then leave to other states (possibly divorcing later)? Do you know how many may marry in other states and then divorce in Mass?
Think of how las vegas througs thoes stats off as well lol

*checks the gospel and the epistles* According to these, I am :)
No. According to your interpretation of those (somewhat suspect) documents, you are speaking the truth.

Ok, I see. So you are the one using divorce rates that make no sense and don't take marriage rates into account.

The only way a "divorce rate" makes any sense is if it is based on the number of marriages (ie. X% of all marriages end in divorce). Divorce rate as a percentage of the total population really doesn't tell you anything at all.

The numbers you are using could be inflated or deflated from people coming in/out of state. Do you know how many people probably marry in Hawii and then leave to other states (possibly divorcing later)? Do you know how many may marry in other states and then divorce in Mass?


Okay, then will someone else please post the links so that we can see and compare the divorce rates that make sense...

But Paul did have that power and authority as an apostle, and we all know what he had to say about homosexuality ;)

You are just so afraid that you won't be able to condemn these people, aren't you? You compare yourself to Steven?

Mathew 7:1-5 Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

Do you understand this passage? By being intolerant and judgemental, you have brought intolerance and judgement upon yourself. Stephen was known for a patient and loving teacher to the point he was often compared to an angel. Do you think any here would compare you to an angel? You've compared yourself to the disciples and now to Stephen. Wow, if that's not pride...

1. We are not (in general) physically suited for combat. It's a fact, let those who are best at something do it, I say.

2. Because, if we allowed anyone who claimed "discrimination", even when it is not such, to have their way, then we would have to legalize polygamy and paedophilia, in the rare case where the child consents.

1. Personal opinion, no basis. If women can pass the physical they should be allowed on the front line

2. Total crap. Why haven't you legalised straight paedophillia where the child consents? Majorly because a child is not legally allowed to consent.

A child is not able to concent ... there is a major difference
You must be at least able mentaly to make an informed decision ... children are not

and as to 1) what does the general averages have to do with thoes that are actualy suted for combat?



And what if we determined that anyone who wished to marry a person of the same gender is not mentally capable of making a rational decision? Not very fair, is it?

Accusation? She said herself that she won't change!

So now it is your task to harden her heart? Very Christian of you. Forgive me, if I choose a different path.

And what if we determined that anyone who wished to marry a person of the same gender is not mentally capable of making a rational decision? Not very fair, is it?
Ok if it is not very far … objectively prove that they are incapable of making a rational decision

So mass has a divorce rate of about 45 %

Hawiaii has under 20%

simple yes?

Unfortunately it isn't that simple. All of the divorces will not be marriages performed in that state. Thus, you aren't getting a view of how many actual marriages performed there end.

If in fact one is truly gay (meaning that they are truly not at all attracted to the opposite sex) then I truly believe that something in their brain isn't functioning properly and it isn't their fault. I guess it could be like a chemical imbalance, and NO I am not saying they are "slow". and NO I am not saying there is a pill to fix the imbalance. I do know quite a few gay individuals. The only thing I can't understand is why that lifestyle has to be so in your face. As a woman, I don't have t-shirts, flags, posters, bumperstickers or signs stating how much I love screwing men....why do I see that so much? Why when I converse with a gay man the conversation usually turns to sex in one form or another? Why are there gay pride days and parades? We don't need education on "gaydom", we all know what it is, and we are content with the pride factor. Maybe if it wasn't so loud and even at times obnoxious, the issue could be viewed in a different light. I am no homophobe and I have no hate in my heart.

Why must it be called marriage? I can see civil unions being completely acceptable. (as long as they added that the couple cannot be related and that they both walk upright) :) Both sides would win.

*checks the gospel and the epistles* According to these, I am :)

Not according to my reading of it. I love people who claim that cannot have misinterpreted the bible when almost everyone has a slightly different view of what it says. You're right. That's not PRIDE at all. /sarcasm

And what if we determined that anyone who wished to marry a person of the same gender is not mentally capable of making a rational decision? Not very fair, is it?

Same for a straight marriage

It's a fact, let those who are best at something do it, I say.
Does this quote mean that she is now claiming that, just because she says something, that statement becomes a fact?!

You are just so afraid that you won't be able to condemn these people, aren't you? You compare yourself to Steven?

Mathew 7:1-5 Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

Do you understand this passage? By being intolerant and judgemental, you have brought intolerance and judgement upon yourself. Stephen was known for a patient and loving teacher to the point he was often compared to an angel. Do you think any here would compare you to an angel? You've compared yourself to the disciples and now to Stephen. Wow, if that's not pride...



Revelation 3:19 19Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent.

Luke 17:3 3So watch yourselves.
"If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him. (From the mouth of Christ Himself)


1 Timothy 5:20 20Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning.


2 Timothy 4:2 2Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction.

Titus 1:13 13This testimony is true. Therefore, rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith


Titus 2:15 15These, then, are the things you should teach. Encourage and rebuke with all authority. Do not let anyone despise you.

Does this quote mean that she is now claiming that, just because she says something, that statement becomes a fact?!



I'm rather certain that biology backs up my claim :rolleyes:

Same for a straight marriage



Yes, so denying a child the right to marry would be logically wrong :)

Unfortunately it isn't that simple. All of the divorces will not be marriages performed in that state. Thus, you aren't getting a view of how many actual marriages performed there end.

ahh I see. I didn't think about this because we just have nationwide statistics

So now it is your task to harden her heart? Very Christian of you. Forgive me, if I choose a different path.




If I sin, I repent. However, as I have already shown, rebuking sinners is not itself a sin :)

If in fact one is truly gay (meaning that they are truly not at all attracted to the opposite sex) then I truly believe that something in their brain isn't functioning properly and it isn't their fault. I guess it could be like a chemical imbalance, and NO I am not saying they are "slow". and NO I am not saying there is a pill to fix the imbalance. I do know quite a few gay individuals. The only thing I can't understand is why that lifestyle has to be so in your face. As a woman, I don't have t-shirts, flags, posters, bumperstickers or signs stating how much I love screwing men....why do I see that so much? Why when I converse with a gay man the conversation usually turns to sex in one form or another? Why are there gay pride days and parades? We don't need education on "gaydom", we all know what it is, and we are content with the pride factor. Maybe if it wasn't so loud and even at times obnoxious, the issue could be viewed in a different light. I am no homophobe and I have no hate in my heart.

Why must it be called marriage? I can see civil unions being completely acceptable. (as long as they added that the couple cannot be related and that they both walk upright) :) Both sides would win.

To respond to the first part: Because they are not treated the same as heterosexuals. If they were, if they were accepted for who they are, there would be no reason for them to draw attention to themselves and certain aspects of their lives.

As for the second part: If it looks like a 'marriage', has all the benfits of a 'marriage', then why not call it what it is: a 'marriage'? Of course, if it doesn't have all the benefits of 'marriage' (like today's 'civil unions'), then we haven't cured the discrimination yet.

And what if we determined that anyone who wished to marry a person of the same gender is not mentally capable of making a rational decision? Not very fair, is it?

Wow. I don't see how you can't understand why people are reacting this way to you. You compare the actions of consenting adults to molesting children and you claim you do this out of compassion. You harden the hearts of those the apostle Neo Rogolia can't convert and you claim you are acting out of compassion. Here's a little saying that you can find outside the bible, actions speak louder than words. Oh and for the record, the biblical definition of hypocrite are the proselytizers who pray on the corner and the pulpit instead of the corner or the closet. You really should avoid using the term.

Yes, so denying a child the right to marry would be logically wrong :)

what has this got to do with same sex marriage?

Pay no attention to how I run my nation. In real life, I'm libertarian. I'm just testing how authoritarian I can be.

I'm also gay. Yep, that's right. I feel we should be entitled to marriage just as much as anyone else. Religion isn't part of the US government. Give it a rest.. quoting the bible means nothing to me, as I'm agnostic.

Wow. I don't see how you can't understand why people are reacting this way to you. You compare the actions of consenting adults to molesting children and you claim you do this out of compassion. You harden the hearts of those the apostle Neo Rogolia can't convert and you claim you are acting out of compassion. Here's a little saying that you can find outside the bible, actions speak louder than words. Oh and for the record, the biblical definition of hypocrite are the proselytizers who pray on the corner and the pulpit instead of the corner or the closet. You really should avoid using the term.



You ignored my point and constructed a strawman. My point was, if you follow the logic used to permit gay marriage, you would also have to allow paedophilia.

Gay "Marriage" is heiratical. Marriage is defined in religious terms. However, same sex civil unions with the same legality of marriage should be allowed. Just please, please, don't call it "marrage".

what has this got to do with same sex marriage?


Read my above post.

You ignored my point and constructed a strawman. My point was, if you follow the logic used to permit gay marriage, you would also have to allow paedophilia.

That's called slippery slope argument. Totally faulty. Your point has been discarded because it is based on invalid premises.

You ignored my point and constructed a strawman. My point was, if you follow the logic used to permit gay marriage, you would also have to allow paedophilia.

how can equal rights between consenting adults lead to the legalistion of paedophilia especially as paedophilia under law is classed as a from of rape.

how can equal rights between consenting adults lead to the legalistion of paedophilia especially as paedophilia under law is classed as a from of rape.

Paeophilia is defined as an overaged person having sex with a minor. Most pedophiles are heterosexual men who go after underaged girls. Just something that statistics say. I don't see how he could connect the two.

That's called slippery slope argument. Totally faulty. Your point has been discarded because it is based on invalid premises.
I'm not sure it'll help any, but I'll clarify:

Paedophelia & homosexuality cannot be compared. Homosexuals aren't paedophiles. Children cannot make an informed choice and give consent.

The strawman you set up is more like this: If SSM's are outlawed because homosexuals cannot give consent, then there's nothing wrong with outlawing it. Trouble is, adult homosexuals can make informed desicions as well as anyone else.

Comparing homosexuals to child molesters is utterly revolting. It's like comparing christians with Neo Rogolia

Gay "Marriage" is heiratical. Marriage is defined in religious terms. However, same sex civil unions with the same legality of marriage should be allowed. Just please, please, don't call it "marrage".
'Marriage' is a social construct. It exists outside of religion. Or are you suggesting that those 'unioned' by justices of the peace are not in 'marriages'?

Read my above post.
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/ss.htm

Even has the discription of why it is a logical fallacy

I'm not sure it'll help any, but I'll clarify:

Paedophelia & homosexuality cannot be compared. Homosexuals aren't paedophiles. Children cannot make an informed choice and give consent.

The strawman you set up is more like this: If SSM's are outlawed because homosexuals cannot give consent, then there's nothing wrong with outlawing it. Trouble is, adult homosexuals can make informed desicions as well as anyone else.

Comparing homosexuals to child molesters is utterly revolting. It's like comparing christians with Neo Rogolia




Or comparing atheists with The Similized World ;)

I'm not sure it'll help any, but I'll clarify:

Paedophelia & homosexuality cannot be compared. Homosexuals aren't paedophiles. Children cannot make an informed choice and give consent.

The strawman you set up is more like this: If SSM's are outlawed because homosexuals cannot give consent, then there's nothing wrong with outlawing it. Trouble is, adult homosexuals can make informed desicions as well as anyone else.

Comparing homosexuals to child molesters is utterly revolting. It's like comparing christians with Neo Rogolia

Thanks for helping me out.. yeah I'm gay, and I have a 19 year old boyfriend (i'm 20). I'm not a child molester. The very thought of being compared to one almost makes me vomit.

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/ss.htm

Even has the discription of why it is a logical fallacy



But this is not a slippery slope argument, because what I stated is not up to chance but would have to occur if following logic supplied by the supposition stated for challenging the laws not permitting gay marriage. If homosexuals could claim discrimination but paedophiles could not, would we not have another case of that oh-so-terrible "seperate but equal"?

Paeophilia is defined as an overaged person having sex with a minor. Most pedophiles are heterosexual men who go after underaged girls. Just something that statistics say. I don't see how he could connect the two.



The statistics I saw stated that the majority of paedophiles prefer boys over girls, care to cite that please?

But this is not a slippery slope argument, because what I stated is not up to chance but would have to occur if following logic supplied by the supposition stated for challenging the laws not permitting gay marriage. If homosexuals could claim discrimination but paedophiles could not, would we not have another case of that oh-so-terrible "seperate but equal"?

Neo, there are organizations who seek to skew statistics showing that pedophiles prefer boys. That's false.

And yes it is a huge slippery slope argument. A homosexual couple (me and my bf) are both consenting. A child cannot consent.

But this is not a slippery slope argument, because what I stated is not up to chance but would have to occur if following logic supplied by the supposition stated for challenging the laws not permitting gay marriage. If homosexuals could claim discrimination but paedophiles could not, would we not have another case of that oh-so-terrible "seperate but equal"?
Wow! The utter nonsense of this remark is amazing. Truly amazing. I don't even know where to begin! God must be so proud of such a work!

Homosexuals, in my thought, will never be treated as heterosexuals. At least not for a long long time. Society won't have it. Not that it's right.
Drawing attention to themselves in the manner I was referring to will not change that treatment for the better. It will probably make it worse.

What is the big deal about having it called a civil union? As long as the rights are the same what is the issue? If it is just a word then let Christians have their word.

Neo, there are organizations who seek to skew statistics showing that pedophiles prefer boys. That's false.

And yes it is a huge slippery slope argument. A homosexual couple (me and my bf) are both consenting. A child cannot consent.



So, when a child states "I want candy!", she is not really stating that she wants candy because she cannot make that judgement?

Comparing homosexuals to child molesters is utterly revolting. It's like comparing christians with Neo Rogolia

Agreed with the former

the latter made me chuckle

So, when a child states "I want candy!", she is not really stating that she wants candy because she cannot make that judgement?

Sex and Candy are two whole different things.

So, when a child states "I want candy!", she is not really stating that she wants candy because she cannot make that judgement?

Wow. That's the worst logical fallacy i have seen yet. We aren't talking about candy. We are talking about sex.

You need to really rethink your ways.

The reason gay marriage is considered evil is because of Leviticus in the bible, which is a complete joke, because the ONLY reason they wrote that is because they needed more people to have babies because they needed more people desperately for farming and economy and other things so they could prosper. At the time it was counter-productive to "lay with another man". The stupidest part about this is that Leviticus also says shaving your beard is a sin, and that wearing clothes of more than one material is a sin. Thus making the point that being gay is evil a completely null point.

So, when a child states "I want candy!", she is not really stating that she wants candy because she cannot make that judgement?
It depends on the circumstances. If the child has diabetes, it's probable it would kill itself because it cannot comprehend the implications of it's actions.
This is why we have legal ages. The age where the vast majority of people can make informed decisions about their own lives.

Will you please stop implying homosexuals are:
A. Unable to make informed decisions.
B. Child molesters.

If I sin, I repent. However, as I have already shown, rebuking sinners is not itself a sin :)

Um, maybe to one unaware of the bible, you may have been convincing. None of the quotes you posted are instructions to you to rebuke sinners. Many of them are intentionally misleading, on your part, and you are trying to make the argument that your PRIDE is justified. It's not and it is counter to the position you are claiming.

Um, maybe to one unaware of the bible, you may have been convincing. None of the quotes you posted are instructions to you to rebuke sinners. Many of them are intentionally misleading, on your part, and you are trying to make the argument that your PRIDE is justified. It's not and it is counter to the position you are claiming.

As far as the bible is concerned, most anti-gay quotes are from the old testament.. aren't christians supposed to be following the new testament?

But this is not a slippery slope argument, because what I stated is not up to chance but would have to occur if following logic supplied by the supposition stated for challenging the laws not permitting gay marriage. If homosexuals could claim discrimination but paedophiles could not, would we not have another case of that oh-so-terrible "seperate but equal"?

So tell me, why are children not allowed to vote and drive cars?

Revelation 3:19 19Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent.

Again, these are not instructions. These are the words of Jesus through John (though which John is a point of contention).

Luke 17:3 3So watch yourselves.
"If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him. (From the mouth of Christ Himself)

Luke 17:3 Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.

It doesn't say sin.

1 Timothy 5:20 20Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning.

I love when you intentionally take things out of context to make them say something completely different than intended.

Here's the entire passage:
Timothy 5:17-20 17The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. 18For the Scripture says, "Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain," and "The worker deserves his wages." 19Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. 20Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning.

In other words it is talking about church elders who are accused of sin by two or more witnesses.

2 Timothy 4:2 2Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction.

These were instructions to Timothy. See my last paragraph. Since you like Timothy, how about...

1 Timothy 4:1-3 1The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.

Huh, who does that sound like?

Titus 1:13 13This testimony is true. Therefore, rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith

Directions to Titus regarding Crete and only Crete. Again, taken out of context.

Titus 1:12-16 12Even one of their own prophets has said, "Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons." 13This testimony is true. Therefore, rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith 14and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the commands of those who reject the truth. 15To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted. 16They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good.

Wow, that bold part sounds like something I said earlier.

Titus 2:15 15These, then, are the things you should teach. Encourage and rebuke with all authority. Do not let anyone despise you.

Oh, yes, again, out of context. You really like that don't you. These were instructions to Titus. He was specifically told to teach others to do differently.

Let's read what Titus says about young men, shall we?

Titus 2:6-8 6Similarly, encourage the young men to be self-controlled. 7In everything set them an example by doing what is good. In your teaching show integrity, seriousness 8and soundness of speech that cannot be condemned, so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us.

I realize you're not a young man, but you could learn from this. In your teaching show INTEGRITY, SERIOUSNESS and SOUNDNESS OF SPEECH that cannot be condemned. Which of us is being condemned? Which of us is being accused of not showing integrity? More importantly, set them an example by DOING WHAT IS GOOD (do rather than say). I'm encouraging you now, practice self-control as this passage suggests and you will do better, have more of an impact and accomplish more with less.

The reason gay marriage is considered evil is because of Leviticus in the bible, which is a complete joke, because the ONLY reason they wrote that is because they needed more people to have babies because they needed more people desperately for farming and economy and other things so they could prosper. At the time it was counter-productive to "lay with another man". The stupidest part about this is that Leviticus also says shaving your beard is a sin, and that wearing clothes of more than one material is a sin. Thus making the point that being gay is evil a completely null point.




So, to reject one law, you point to another law that is (in your eyes) ridiculous because it is in the same book? It doesn't work that way. Also, you'll need to reinforce your stated reason for the laws with evidence if you're going to make an assertion as to their purpose.

So tell me, why are children not allowed to vote and drive cars?

Yeah, I voted several times.. including in the California Recall...

Neo has no point.

"So, to reject one law, you point to another law that is (in your eyes) ridiculous because it is in the same book? It doesn't work that way. Also, you'll need to reinforce your stated reason for the laws with evidence if you're going to make an assertion as to their purpose."

Dude get over it... the US isn't based on the bible. You have nationstates to do that. Go ahead and make the country in your own eyes.

I'm rather certain that biology backs up my claim :rolleyes:

Really? Biology supports your claim that women are not suited for combat? In the Marine Corps, on average, women are more skilled at markmanship, than men. In Isreal, women are permitted on the front line and they have some of the most feared ground forces on the planet. Combat relies much less on physical strength these days. Women have better peripheral vision than men. Peripheral vision being absolutely important in an urban combat environment. Biology doesn't actually agree with you. However, if you'd like to try and demonstrate this, I'm willing to listen.

As far as the bible is concerned, most anti-gay quotes are from the old testament.. aren't christians supposed to be following the new testament?

Yes, Christ lifted the laws of Moses. Christians are supposed to follow the New Testament.

2. Because, if we allowed anyone who claimed "discrimination", even when it is not such, to have their way, then we would have to legalize polygamy and paedophilia, in the rare case where the child consents.

What is it with bigots and paranoid delusions? Not to mention the fact that you have completely lost touch with reality.

Why is this not a case of discrimination, when people are being denied rights when no one would loose if they were granted those rights?

What is inherantly bad about legalising polygamy?

Are you completely unaware of concepts like "age of consent"? Someone of your moral stature should know about these things.

They are no universal good and evil, so don't stick your mind with them.

GAY are NOT EVIL. So, they should not be outlawed.

But GAY MARRIGES are UNHEALTHY. So, it must be banned.

As long as they love each other, lawful marrige is not compulsory.

Gay couples should take the responsibility to imagine the changes upon the future societies once gay marrige is legalized. Think for the best of the whole human race, not only for their interest.

<Snip>
Off topic for a moment...

Damn Jocabia! TCT is the only one I've ever seen stomp out stupidity with the same calm reason & ease as you! Sitting here with a broken leg, being bored outta my skull, you just made my day :) Thanks for being around, and being so calm about it all.[/Fanboy rant]

But GAY MARRIGES are UNHEALTHY. So, it must be banned.

Gay couples should take the responsibility to imagine the changes upon the future societies once gay marrige is legalized. Think for the best of the whole human race, not only for their interest.

This is not logical. People claimed the same thing about inter-racial marriage.

Gay couples should take the responsibility to imagine the changes upon the future societies once gay marrige is legalized. Think for the best of the whole human race, not only for their interest.

Changes such as?
Fire raining down from the sky? Seas becoming as blood? The rightious falling before the wicked? All of creation trembling before the burning standards of hell?

Th
But GAY MARRIGES are UNHEALTHY. So, it must be banned.

As long as they love each other, lawful marrige is not compulsory.

Gay couples should take the responsibility to imagine the changes upon the future societies once gay marrige is legalized. Think for the best of the whole human race, not only for their interest.

What changes would occur?

So, to reject one law, you point to another law that is (in your eyes) ridiculous because it is in the same book? It doesn't work that way. Also, you'll need to reinforce your stated reason for the laws with evidence if you're going to make an assertion as to their purpose.

Leviticus has ridiculous laws in it, because it was the old testament and Jesus lifted the laws of Moses. They were uninspired works. The old testament said to impersonate a preist is an offense due capital punishment, as was gathering sticks on the sabbath and lying with a man/boy as a woman (again, some argue this does not refer to homosexuality. There is some dispute as to the intent of this passage and in the old text it used two different words for "man" in the first and second part of the direction. Some claim it said male and man, some man and boy, thus challenging pedophelia, some just two different words for man.). We do not stone people for any of these offenses anymore and even the strictest fundamentalists don't suggest we should.

Again, these are not instructions. These are the words of Jesus through John (though which John is a point of contention).


Actually, they are instructions as he was directing the statement to the reader. It's evident from the context surrounding the sentence:

These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God's creation. 15I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! 16So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth. 17You say, 'I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. 18I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see. 19Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent. 20Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me. 21To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne. 22He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches."


Luke 17:3 Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.

It doesn't say sin.


It does in the NIV which I quoted.



I love when you intentionally take things out of context to make them say something completely different than intended.

Here's the entire passage:
Timothy 5:17-20 17The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. 18For the Scripture says, "Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain," and "The worker deserves his wages."[c] 19Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. 20Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning.

In other words it is talking about church elders who are accused of sin by two or more witnesses.



It would seem that way, however he does not limit it to elders, for it states "Those who sin" which applies to all sinners, regardless of the fact that the previous sentence was discussing elders.







These were instructions to Timothy. See my last paragraph. Since you like Timothy, how about...

1 Timothy 4:1-3 1The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3[B]They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.

Huh, who does that sound like?



And how does God define marriage?


Matthew 19:4-6 4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[b]? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."




Directions to Titus regarding Crete and only Crete. Again, taken out of context.

Titus 1:12-16 12Even one of their own prophets has said, "Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons." 13This testimony is true. Therefore, rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith 14and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the commands of those who reject the truth. 15To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted. 16They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good.

Wow, that bold part sounds like something I said earlier.


The context implies that rebuking those who stray is acceptable and commanded. Therefore, even though you claim it was only addressed to the insubordinate, your point actually serves to reinforce mine. Thank you :)




Oh, yes, again, out of context. You really like that don't you. These were instructions to Titus. He was specifically told to teach others to do differently.

Let's read what Titus says about young men, shall we?

Titus 2:6-8 6Similarly, encourage the young men to be self-controlled. 7In everything set them an example by doing what is good. In your teaching show integrity, seriousness 8and soundness of speech that cannot be condemned, so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us.

I realize you're not a young man, but you could learn from this. In your teaching show INTEGRITY, SERIOUSNESS and SOUNDNESS OF SPEECH that cannot be condemned. Which of us is being condemned? Which of us is being accused of not showing integrity? More importantly, set them an example by DOING WHAT IS GOOD (do rather than say). I'm encouraging you now, practice self-control as this passage suggests and you will do better, have more of an impact and accomplish more with less.



Titus 2:11-15 11For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, 12teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, 13looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, 14who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works.
15Speak these things, exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no one despise you.



Once more, context reaffirms the notion of Christians rebuking sin, not just Titus.

So, to reject one law, you point to another law that is (in your eyes) ridiculous because it is in the same book? It doesn't work that way. Also, you'll need to reinforce your stated reason for the laws with evidence if you're going to make an assertion as to their purpose.

And yet you would follow all the laws blindly without using that priceless option of free will that God was generous enough for him to give. That screams illogical to me.

So, when a child states "I want candy!", she is not really stating that she wants candy because she cannot make that judgement?

Again I refer to the Titus 2:6-8. What possible good are you doing your cause or the cause of Christians by this behavior? You know full well that children cannot enter into contracts and that in the eyes of the law marriage is a contract. Your arguments are specious and do a disservice to you, homosexuals and Christians.

Leviticus has ridiculous laws in it, because it was the old testament and Jesus lifted the laws of Moses. They were uninspired works. The old testament said to impersonate a preist is an offense due capital punishment, as was gathering sticks on the sabbath and lying with a man/boy as a woman (again, some argue this does not refer to homosexuality. There is some dispute as to the intent of this passage and in the old text it used two different words for "man" in the first and second part of the direction. Some claim it said male and man, some man and boy, thus challenging pedophelia, some just two different words for man.). We do not stone people for any of these offenses anymore and even the strictest fundamentalists don't suggest we should.



My question: Why do people keep pointing to the supposed "absurd" laws of Leviticus, while completely ignoring the New Law which is still applicable to this day in which homosexuality is also condemned? Seems to me like a classic case of picking one's evidence when it supports one's premise and ignoring the rest.

Off topic for a moment...

Damn Jocabia! TCT is the only one I've ever seen stomp out stupidity with the same calm reason & ease as you! Sitting here with a broken leg, being bored outta my skull, you just made my day :) Thanks for being around, and being so calm about it all.[/Fanboy rant]

I admire TCT so I will take that as an excellent compliment. Thank you. I tend to get frustrated and snarky but I do try to stay calm and make my posts educational rather than just accuse the other person of things.

And yet you would follow all the laws blindly without using that priceless option of free will that God was generous enough for him to give. That screams illogical to me.



Ah, but free will has its rewards and consequences. Just because God enabled one to sin, does not mean he actually desires that one do so.

My question: Why do people keep pointing to the supposed "absurd" laws of Leviticus, while completely ignoring the New Law which is still applicable to this day in which homosexuality is also condemned? Seems to me like a classic case of picking one's evidence when it supports one's premise and ignoring the rest.

The bible is so misinterpreted that you can't say for certain if it actually condemns homosexuality. It has been rewritten so many times. In fact, I'm glad I'm agnostic. I could care less about the bible.

My question: Why do people keep pointing to the supposed "absurd" laws of Leviticus, while completely ignoring the New Law which is still applicable to this day in which homosexuality is also condemned? Seems to me like a classic case of picking one's evidence when it supports one's premise and ignoring the rest.

The New Testament repeats Leviticus and there are the same questions as to intent.

Again I refer to the Titus 2:6-8. What possible good are you doing your cause or the cause of Christians by this behavior? You know full well that children cannot enter into contracts and that in the eyes of the law marriage is a contract. Your arguments are specious and do a disservice to you, homosexuals and Christians.



I was just showing the logical pattern which would be followed by a government upon allowing homosexual marriage to exist because homosexuals claim "discrimination". You must remember, I'm in several arguments at once with multiple individuals :(

Ah, but free will has its rewards and consequences. Just because God enabled one to sin, does not mean he actually desires that one do so.

No but I don't think god wanted us to follow a 2000 year old scripture to the letter like lemmings walking off a cliff.

The New Testament repeats Leviticus and there are the same questions as to intent.



Exactly, so why do these people choose to lambast Leviticus yet ignore Romans? Is it because Romans isn't an "easy target"?

I believe that people are against gay marriage out of fear. The religious right has done an excellent job explaining to people that allowing gay marriage will destroy the American Family. I believe these people are led by fear -- absolute and total fear. There are very few people that I know who know that I am gay and are against gay marriages. Of the ones that are, the argument is that if we let gay people marry then men should be allowed to have more than one wife. Well, I don't think that would happen, but why can't men have more than one wife? Let's look to the ultimate resource on any subject: the Bible. In the Old Testament, many of the men had more than one wife -- just take a look at David.

Getting back to the argument that the American Family will fail -- take a good look around you -- the American Family has failed and there aren't any gay marriages. 1 out of 2 marriages end in divorce. Children have step-parent after step-parent. We spoil our children so much that they can't make decent grown up decisions. This has nothing to do with whether or not you allow gay people to marry.

I was just showing the logical pattern which would be followed by a government upon allowing homosexual marriage to exist because homosexuals claim "discrimination". You must remember, I'm in several arguments at once with multiple individuals :(

I'm glad you are the minority opinion here. I'm from Spain. My country has a right to make democratic moves.

I was just showing the logical pattern which would be followed by a government upon allowing homosexual marriage to exist because homosexuals claim "discrimination". You must remember, I'm in several arguments at once with multiple individuals :(

I know exactly what you're doing. You're arguing for a slippery slope that does not exist. SSM has as much to do with pedophelia as heterosexual marriage does. SSM has as much to with polygamy as heterosexual marriage does. SSM is protected under our current constitution. Pedophelia and polygamy are not. Your comparisons and your arguments do not show reason.

Most specifically, you know that children are not allowed to enter into contracts but when one states this you compare entering contracts to 'wanting candy'. You want a better rebuttal. When a child says they want candy, we don't necessarily give it to them. An adult can say, "candy is not what's best for you at this time, have an apple" even if the child can afford the candy and it's available. When an adult wants candy, can afford the candy and it's available, they choose whether or not to get it.

I'm glad you are the minority opinion here. I'm from Spain. My country has a right to make democratic moves.



I'm sure you are, I would be happy if I were in the majority on this forum too :)

What changes would occur?

I don't really know.. honestly

maybe..

More people will get into gay marriges without significant hesitation..

more parents will get upset if their sons do this.. Maybe this is what they call PROTECT FAMILY...don't know!

But one thing for sure:

No offence, the truth is most of the world feel sick about gay marriges, and I don't know how the world feel for your country.

BTW inter-racial marrige is not unhealhty in clinical view.

One more thing..


We only emphasize in BEST decision making in ruling a nation, not the GOOD AND EVIL. It is not a fair world afterall.
The president say alot of "to defend the very existance or our nation", and the current nation is a non-gay nation

I know exactly what you're doing. You're arguing for a slippery slope that does not exist. SSM has as much to do with pedophelia as heterosexual marriage does. SSM has as much to with polygamy as heterosexual marriage does. SSM is protected under our current constitution. Pedophelia and polygamy are not. Your comparisons and your arguments do not show reason.




Actually, SSM isn't protected under our current constitution, elsewise we wouldn't be having this argument in the first place ;)

The bible is so misinterpreted that you can't say for certain if it actually condemns homosexuality. It has been rewritten so many times. In fact, I'm glad I'm agnostic. I could care less about the bible.



The original texts are preserved, I'm currently learning Latin and Hebrew so that I can read them. The "mistranslated and rewritten" thing is not a valid argument.

BTW inter-racial marrige is not unhealhty in clinical view.

Homosexual sexual marriage isn't unhealthy either.

No but I don't think god wanted us to follow a 2000 year old scripture to the letter like lemmings walking off a cliff.



Well, the Son of God and the prophets and apostles stated otherwise, so I'm going to have to agree with them.

Exactly, so why do these people choose to lambast Leviticus yet ignore Romans? Is it because Romans isn't an "easy target"?

It's because Christians more commonly cite Leviticus than Romans. The poster who lambasted Leviticus was likely unaware of Romans. Again, Romans has the same interpretive problems.

The original texts are preserved, I'm currently learning Latin and Hebrew so that I can read them. The "mistranslated and rewritten" thing is not a valid argument.

Umm very little of the original text is preserved. And yes they have been mistranslated and rewritten.. it is a valid argument. You can't disprove me either. :mp5:

But one thing for sure:

No offence, the truth is most of the world feel sick about gay marriges, and I don't know how the world feel for your country.



Can I ask about what your basing that "truth" on?

Well, the Son of God and the prophets and apostles stated otherwise, so I'm going to have to agree with them.

Great! Now go live in a dung/clay hut with a thatched roof and get off the net.

Perharps, gay marrige is good in other side of the view. (lesbian marrige will have better result though)

Imagine that more and more couples fall into single same-sex-marrige. Certainly that's a new form of "natural world population control".

Hopefully no one from my same surname fall into homosexuality.

Umm very little of the original text is preserved. And yes they have been mistranslated and rewritten.. it is a valid argument. You can't disprove me either. :mp5:



If I weren't too lazy to search the internet for them, then I could. So, yes, until I gather the willpower to do so I suppose I can't disprove you :D

Great! Now go live in a dung/clay hut with a thatched roof and get off the net.



I don't remember where I was commanded to do so... :rolleyes:

Since you like Timothy, how about...
Considering how much Neo likes Timothy, I'm amazed she missed 1 Timothy 2:11-12. Not that I condone or accept that passage, but that for such a fundie, you'd think she wouldn't be such a hypocrite.

If I weren't too lazy to search the internet for them, then I could. So, yes, until I gather the willpower to do so I suppose I can't disprove you :D

Or you are just a liar. :)

Homosexual sexual marriage isn't unhealthy either.



Sodomy is unhealthy for the poor ol' rectum, it isn't very durable compared to the sexual orifice.

Well, the Son of God and the prophets and apostles stated otherwise, so I'm going to have to agree with them.

What an excellent "lemming" answer. "because someone else told me". I'm Catholic and I exercise my free will, I have my own opinons.
You seem to base all your opinions on what some people thought God was telling them 2000 years ago. And your reason for following it is "they told me so". Do you actually decide much on your own?

Sodomy is unhealthy for the poor ol' rectum, it isn't very durable compared to the sexual orifice.

Tell that to all the heterosexual couples doing it.

And FYI, many gay men do not do it. Including myself. Just like I don't do S&M.

Actually, SSM isn't protected under our current constitution, elsewise we wouldn't be having this argument in the first place ;)

Why do we keep having this argument? Let he who has ears hear, the fourteenth amendment forbid discrimination on the basis of sex or gender. PERIOD. SSM is a clear and obvious discrimination by sex and gender. It is only a matter of time before laws against it are found unconstitutional. Not all unconstitutional law is immediately thrown out. The DOMA is in clear violation of Article IV yet it was not immediately thrown out. You have a difficulty distinguishing between what hasn't been overturned yet and the actual text of the constitution.

Also, generally, no one takes you seriously if you place smilies in half your posts. They make you seem smug, which is counter-productive.

I don't remember where I was commanded to do so... :rolleyes:

Well I am sure the Levites lived similarly so show some integrity. ;)

Homosexual sexual marriage isn't unhealthy either.

It's NOT unhealty in clinical view, if they use condom.

What an excellent "lemming" answer. "because someone else told me". I'm Catholic and I exercise my free will, I have my own opinons.
You seem to base all your opinions on what some people thought God was telling them 2000 years ago. And your reason for following it is "they told me so". Do you actually decide much on your own?



So, because I relinquish my pride and arrogance and admit that my intelligence and wisdom is naught compared to God's, I become a lemming? If so, then I suppose I have no qualms with being one.

The original texts are preserved, I'm currently learning Latin and Hebrew so that I can read them. The "mistranslated and rewritten" thing is not a valid argument.

I suspect you're not actually telling the truth or you are ignorant of the original languages of the bible. If you wanted to read the original texts you would be learning Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek (not Latin).

Well I am sure the Levites lived similarly so show some integrity. ;)



We are to emulate the character of Christ, not Levites....also, emulating the character does not include having the same living conditions ;)

So, because I relinquish my pride and arrogance and admit that my intelligence and wisdom is naught compared to God's, I become a lemming? If so, then I suppose I have no qualms with being one.

Would you jump off a cliff if the bible said to at a certain age?

I suspect you're not actually telling the truth or you are ignorant of the original languages of the bible. If you wanted to read the original texts you would be learning Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek (not Latin).



Just pretend I said classic Greek and not Latin, it was a mistake.

We are to emulate the character of Christ, not Levites....also, emulating the character does not include having the same living conditions ;)

*Note to self become a carpenter.*

Would you jump off a cliff if the bible said to at a certain age?


:rolleyes:

*Note to self become a carpenter.*


Character! Not vocation! Character! :mad:

homosexuals aren't deprived of any right (pertaining to marriage) that hetrosexuals have. hetrosexuals can't marry someone of the same gender either. homosexuals can get married if they want to, as long as the person they're marrying is of the opposite gender. Homosexuals can't have children with their "partner" and are forced to adopt or find someone who would carry the child or donate the sperm. if this is true then why can't two people who are related to each other get married? they could adopt and raise a child also, couldn't they?

but anyway, i'm totaly against homosexual marriage.

:rolleyes:

thats not really an answer

Character! Not vocation! Character! :mad:

Fine then.

*Note to self don't cut my hair, and grow a beard.*

Perharps, gay marrige is good in other side of the view. (lesbian marrige will have better result though)

Imagine that more and more couples fall into single same-sex-marrige. Certainly that's a new form of "natural world population control".

Hopefully no one from my same surname fall into homosexuality.

I hate to break it to you, but you don't "fall into homosexuality".

You are either homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, or (rarely) asexual. There is no "falling into" a sexuality.

Most likely, there are or have already been homosexuals in your family. *Gasp*

homosexuals aren't deprived of any right (pertaining to marriage) that hetrosexuals have. hetrosexuals can't marry someone of the same gender either.

It is the slippery slope conservative argument.. homosexuals can marry someone of the opposite sex.. what BS...

thats not really an answer



Because the question is silly. What relation to Christ's message and the teachings of the apostles would that have? Regardless, I'm going to play some FFXI for now so feel free to continue without me.

We are to emulate the character of Christ, not Levites....also, emulating the character does not include having the same living conditions ;)

My dear Rog, you are probably among the least Christ like Christians I've encountered.

The statistics I saw stated that the majority of paedophiles prefer boys over girls, care to cite that please?
That's just not true. In the 80's when I was studying criminal justice, the studies indicated that 70% of all molestors were hetrosexual, white males.

A more current study suggests that 1 out of 3 girls are molested and 1 out of 4 boys are molested by age 18. 1 out of 3 girls would indicate that more girls are molested than boys. Case in point, out of 100 girls, about 30 of them would be molested by age 18. In contrast, out of 100 boys, only 20 of them would be molested. The problem is that molestors who attack boys get more attention than those who molest girls.

Also, there are two places within the New Testament that mention "homosexuality". The Romans quote is: "For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due."

Taking this out of context makes it look as if Paul is referring to homosexuals, but in reality, he is referring to Pagans participating in these acts as rituals -- not to people in loving same-sex relationships.

The next quote is from 1 Corinthians 6:9. It is often misquoted as:

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals", etc.

But, actually, the word homosexual didn't exist in the days of Paul. Also, the true word here should be catamites, which according to dictionary.com means A boy who has a sexual relationship with a man.

I truly believe that any adult who has sex with a child is sick and should be locked up for life. No Ands, ifs or Buts. However, you cannot compare my adult relationship with my adult wife to being a child molestor. It is just another sick and twisted way that the so-called righteous people twist the gay marriage issue for their own means.

homosexuals aren't deprived of any right (pertaining to marriage) that hetrosexuals have. hetrosexuals can't marry someone of the same gender either. homosexuals can get married if they want to, as long as the person they're marrying is of the opposite gender.

Wow, another person who can't seem to grasp the concept that "getting married" is not something you do alone.

Are you really suggesting that homosexuals marry someone as a lie just because you think it would be more "normal"?

Because the question is silly. What relation to Christ's message and the teachings of the apostles would that have? Regardless, I'm going to play some FFXI for now so feel free to continue without me.

Just seeing if there's any independent thought left

if this is true then why can't two people who are related to each other get married? they could adopt and raise a child also, couldn't they?

I don't know in the future. But in current gay-discrimination world, I cannot imagine how the mental state of a child, who raised by gay couple will become

I don't know in the future. But in current gay-discrimination world, I cannot imagine how the mental state of a child, who raised by gay couple will become

Do you know that gay couples already adopt? One of my friends was adopted by a gay couple. He's not in bad mental state. :rolleyes:

I don't know in the future. But in current gay-discrimination world, I cannot imagine how the mental state of a child, who raised by gay couple will become

The same as any one raised by a heterosexual couple??? Just you know throwing that out there.

That's just not true. In the 80's when I was studying criminal justice, the studies indicated that 70% of all molestors were hetrosexual, white males.

.
Actually, R0g probably based her assumption on a study by an American psychiatrist who produced a study showing homosexuals (male) are many times more llikely to molest children. Unfortunately, the author of that study (name I forgot) was censured by his colleagues for doing extremely poor and biased research. He remains a hero amongst the fundaloons though.

now that's a silly question, isn't it. the bible doesn't say that, and if it did then it wouldn't be a very good book to follow would it?

The fact that you have to state its a silly question :D . Of course its a silly question I was just trying to see if Neo was capable of free will. The only reason I asked becaused people who blindly follow the bible annoy me.

I believe that people are against gay marriage out of fear. The religious right has done an excellent job explaining to people that allowing gay marriage will destroy the American Family. I believe these people are led by fear -- absolute and total fear. There are very few people that I know who know that I am gay and are against gay marriages. Of the ones that are, the argument is that if we let gay people marry then men should be allowed to have more than one wife. Well, I don't think that would happen, but why can't men have more than one wife? Let's look to the ultimate resource on any subject: the Bible. In the Old Testament, many of the men had more than one wife -- just take a look at David.

Getting back to the argument that the American Family will fail -- take a good look around you -- the American Family has failed and there aren't any gay marriages. 1 out of 2 marriages end in divorce. Children have step-parent after step-parent. We spoil our children so much that they can't make decent grown up decisions. This has nothing to do with whether or not you allow gay people to marry.


Very well said.

JMayo

That's just not true. *snip*

Her premise is that homosexual = pedophiliac.

She has made the abuse "statistics" claim many times and has been challenged many times.

She will parrot the same claim later on.

The only real arguement against Gay Marriage is religous, and even that one is wrong.

I actually have heard an arguement about how it takes away money, but that is saying that it also takes away money from the economy for straight marriages, and that gay marriages are unnesciary. It will be impossible for gay people to rise to such numbers that the world cannot reproduce, unless there is some great culling of sorts. Then we're in big trouble.

In a 44 page arguement, it's probably been stated, but that's my veiw.

fundaloons

Oh I like that term! :D

Yes, I know, another gay-marriage thread. I just want to get answers to a few questions. First, how can you call yourself American and deny any right to any person that is allowed to others. In this case the right of a gay couple to obtain a licence of marriage that any heterosexual couple may obtain for any reason. Many who argue against gay marriage say they are "defending family;" what are you defending family against? I have seen countless studies from counless "experts" from both sides of the fence, none have led to any conclusive data, simply because of the fact that there are no facts concerning people and groups of people. There can only be generalizations. I want to discuss the sociological and political implications of the legalization of homosexual marraige. I do not want to hear any reference to any religious texts whatsoever. Religion has no place in politics. Period. Being homosexual is part of DNA code, you can't CHOOSE whether or not you want to be gay, because let's face it, given the choice who would want to be gay? NO ONE! Homosexuality is less productive than Heterosexuality, you can't have children in a gay marriage. You can adopt children in a gay marriage, and as far as I'm concerned that's just as good as having parents of opposite sexes. The only problem that would arise through raising children in a gay marriage would be if the kid went to school and they got bullied.

The same as any one raised by a heterosexual couple??? Just you know throwing that out there.

As long as my dad never tell me.. I won't know if my dad is heterosexual.

What I try to say is:

At least I have a female mom and a male dad. The feel is not same.

Sorry, I never met a homosexual child (raised by homosexual couple) before. I don't know about your place, but a child like that will be VERY LIKELY viewed in different way by his friend. I just don't know.

Sorry, I never met a homosexual child (raised by homosexual couple) before. I don't know about your place, but a child like that will be VERY LIKELY viewed in different way by his friend. I just don't know.

My friend is heterosexual, but he has two dads.

"how would it be a lie for a homosexual to marry someone of the opposite gender?"

dude that is so ridiculous. Stop saying it. I heard the argument before. It doesn't fly.

how would it be a lie for a homosexual to marry someone of the opposite gender?

Well firstly the homosexual would have to lie to himself about being homosexual. Betraying themselves.

Then they would be lying to the person they marry because this person would never be able to truly satisfy the homosexual, physically or emotionally.
Betraying them

Both would be living a lie

Well firstly the homosexual would have to lie to himself about being homosexual. Betraying themselves.

Then they would be lying to the person they marry because this person would never be able to truly satisfy the homosexual, physically or emotionally.
Betraying her

Both would be living a lie

Former Governor McGreevey anyone? I think that's his name.. he's the one that came out as gay (not bisexual) and he had a wife and two kids.. talk about betraying himself, his wife and his two kids.

telling a gay person they can marry someone of the opposite sex is cold, rotten and wrong.

Well firstly the homosexual would have to lie to himself about being homosexual. Betraying themselves.

Then they would be lying to the person they marry because this person would never be able to truly satisfy the homosexual, physically or emotionally.
Betraying her

Both would be living a lie

*sigh* Why would they bother with lie anyway. Marriage is not a compulsory process after all.

Former Governor McGreevey anyone? I think that's his name.. he's the one that came out as gay (not bisexual) and he had a wife and two kids.. talk about betraying himself, his wife and his two kids.

telling a gay person they can marry someone of the opposite sex is cold, rotten and wrong.

Famous Brit, Oscar Wilde, he also had a wife and 2 kids

they wouldn't have to be living a lie, they wouldn't even have to live with each other. many people marry for political or economic reasone (although that is completely deplorable) and sleep with other people with the knowledge of their spouse.

and who said the homosexual had to be a guy?

so you'd rather see the sanctity of marriage go out the window than allowing gay marriage

On i side note i did edit my previous post to be non gender specific, that one mistake got past me

whoa, what's with this wife and two kids thing? i mean, is every polititian who has a wife and two kids gay?!?!?[jk] :rolleyes:

Oscar Wilde was a poet who was thrown in jail because he was found to be gay

Oscar Wilde was a poet who was thrown in jail because he was found to be gay

Yep!

And look what happened to Alan Turing.....

they wouldn't have to be living a lie, they wouldn't even have to live with each other. many people marry for political or economic reasone (although that is completely deplorable) and sleep with other people with the knowledge of their spouse.

and who said the homosexual had to be a guy?

I'm going to assume you're young based on the quality of your posts. Feel free to correct me. If you're not a puppet or a reincarnation, you probably want to concern yourself with the quality of your posts as you are here making your first impressions. Do you honestly want to take your stand on an argument that is exactly the argument used for denying people interracial marriages?

Homosexuals and heterosexuals alike can marry whoever they want provided they are of the opposite sex. That's not a violation of equal rights.

Blacks and whites alike can marry whoever they want provided they are of the same race. That's not a violation of equal rights.

The latter has already been established to be a violation of the fourteenth amendment and the former isn't far from being so as well. Legal arguments against this really don't hold water (thus the reason why they are trying to make an amendment).

If your argument is religious, are you seriously suggesting that God would like homosexuals to enter into heterosexual marriages that are either open, non-loving or based on a lie?

Seriously, rethink your position.

no i wouldn't. also i never said homosexuals had to marry anyone, i only said that they had the same marriage rights as anyone else.

Here we go with that rotten argument again. No they don't. If they had the same marriage rights they would be able to marry someone of the same sex.

Yep!

And look what happened to Alan Turing.....

Indeed

I'm going to assume you're young based on the quality of your posts. Feel free to correct me.

why do you make the assumption that because i don't capitalize words at the start of a sentence or becaues i don't punctuate my posts properly that i must be young. i could be an illiterate middle aged person. i could be a lazy middle aged person. i could be a lazy 14 year old. you can't make the assumption that i am young just because i don't punctuate properly or capitalize the first word of a sentence. how young exactly were you thinking?

the quality of my posts isn't poor because i am young, it's because i don't deem this debate worthy of the extra effort i would use to improve the quality of my posts.

why do you make the assumption that because i don't capitalize words at the start of a sentence or becaues i don't punctuate my posts properly that i must be young. i could be an illiterate middle aged person. i could be a lazy middle aged person. i could be a lazy 14 year old. you can't make the assumption that i am young just because i don't punctuate properly or capitalize the first word of a sentence. how young exactly were you thinking?

the quality of my posts isn't poor because i am young, it's because i don't deem this debate worthy of the extra effort i would use to improve the quality of my posts.

I Think Jocabia was refering more to the content of said posts not the punctuation

they wouldn't have to be living a lie, they wouldn't even have to live with each other. many people marry for political or economic reasone (although that is completely deplorable) and sleep with other people with the knowledge of their spouse.

and who said the homosexual had to be a guy?

For some people, this option is better than nothing. There are two massive problems with it.

1) One of the main reasons that people marry each other is to display comitment. It may be fundamentally against one's beliefs to marry someone they are not in love with.

2) If the marraige is for the legal benifits, though, many of these benifits relate directly to the spouse. For example: Should you go to the hospital, your love would have no right to know, or to make any decisions for you. Just your spouse.

now that's a silly question, isn't it. the bible doesn't say that, and if it did then it wouldn't be a very good book to follow would it?

There are those who would follow it anyways, because there are those who place their faith in the human beings who write about God, rather than in God.

There are those who would follow it anyways, because there are those who place their faith in the human beings who write about God, rather than in God.

Thank you, you saw the reasoning behind my post, I mean they already claimed to be a lemming so it had to be asked

i don't see why my statement would make you think any of these silly things. i never said that getting married involved only one person

If it doesn't involve only one person, then the "A homosexual can marry a member of the opposite sex just as a straight person can" makes no sense. There are two people involved in a marriage - and their relationship begins before the marriage occurs. Thus, some people will get into relationships and be allowed to marry (heterosexuals) and others will not (homosexuals).

and i never said that a homosexual should marry someone of the opposite gender as a lie just because i think it would be more normal. how would it be a lie for a homosexual to marry someone of the opposite gender?

How is it a lie? Do you not think that marrying someone with whom you cannot form the type of relationship that necessitates a marriage would be a lie? Do you not think that love and sex as an expression of that love should be part of a marriage?

why do you make the assumption that because i don't capitalize words at the start of a sentence or becaues i don't punctuate my posts properly that i must be young. i could be an illiterate middle aged person. i could be a lazy middle aged person. i could be a lazy 14 year old. you can't make the assumption that i am young just because i don't punctuate properly or capitalize the first word of a sentence. how young exactly were you thinking?

the quality of my posts isn't poor because i am young, it's because i don't deem this debate worthy of the extra effort i would use to improve the quality of my posts.

I wasn't talking about your ability to capitalize and punctuate. I said you're free to correct me. State your age.

if it were true then the christians would have died out a long long time ago. and the bible would have been forget, so people wouldn't follow it.

That doesn't even make sense.

Me: "Some people place their faith in human beings, rather than in God."

You: "That can't be or there would be no Christians!"


Huh?

so what is it that makes the quality of my posts so juvenial?

Are you really asking this? Fine. Your arguments are poorly formed. You're not really thinking ahead. It's obvious that when you post questions or statements you are not prepared for the replies or you would word them differently. This suggests you are not very experienced. Need I continue, or do you get the point?

Quite simply look at the parts of the bible I quoted earlier in the thread about how to discuss things. It teaches how a young man should talk about the bible and behave in order to be respected. It would not hurt you to follow those teachings.

Titus 2:6-8 6Similarly, encourage the young men to be self-controlled. 7In everything set them an example by doing what is good. In your teaching show integrity, seriousness 8and soundness of speech that cannot be condemned, so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us.

More importantly, you ignored the entire content of my post to argue about your age, particularly, when you know I'm correct. That suggests youth.

Just pretend I said classic Greek and not Latin, it was a mistake.

You're not certain the names of the languages you say you are already learning? Really? I find that odd and a little hard to believe.

what page?

Reread the post. I included the bible text.

Well I'm gay and am for marrige, I'm also not American I'm English, but that does not matter, I fail to see why in a modern country with varius religions and most people, in the UK at least, not being particually religius why Gay Marriges should be denied to couples who want them, I personall even if allowed to marry by law would not do it in a religeus setting, but would consider doing it from a legal point of view so that I would with a partner have the same rights as a hetrosexual relationship. Why should I not be allowed that, it is unfair and sexist to say only men and women can marry and not two men or two women.

:) Scott.

One thing people should be thinking about is that marriage is the union between a man and a woman, THAT IS WHAT MARRIAGE IS. Now IT has to change to become something else? That does not make any sense, so why don't we just make something else up that will be the union between a man and a man, or a women and a women. Not marriage, marriage is allready something, but something else, that would amount to the union between to people of the same sex. I don't see what the problem is, just make something up like 'barriage' or 'sarriage', but not marriage, that is taken. Marriage is the union of a man and women and it should stay that, but I agree that there should be something for same sex couple, but not marriage.

Well I'm gay and am for marrige, I'm also not American I'm English, but that does not matter, I fail to see why in a modern country with varius religions and most people, in the UK at least, not being particually religius why Gay Marriges should be denied to couples who want them, I personall even if allowed to marry by law would not do it in a religeus setting, but would consider doing it from a legal point of view so that I would with a partner have the same rights as a hetrosexual relationship. Why should I not be allowed that, it is unfair and sexist to say only men and women can marry and not two men or two women.

:) Scott.

That's awesome... I'm the other gay poster here from what i know. Did they pass gay marriage in UK yet? I live in los angeles right now, but I'm originally from Spain. If anything, i would go back to Spain if I ever decide to get married.

One thing people should be thinking about is that marriage is the union between a man and a woman, THAT IS WHAT MARRIAGE IS. Now IT has to change to become something else? That does not make any sense, so why don't we just make something else up that will be the union between a man and a man, or a women and a women. Not marriage, marriage is allready something, but something else, that would amount to the union between to people of the same sex. I don't see what the problem is, just make something up like 'barriage' or 'sarriage', but not marriage, that is taken. Marriage is the union of a man and women and it should stay that, but I agree that there should be something for same sex couple, but not marriage.

Eh no. Marriage is between two consenting adults. It won't be something else if gay marriage is allowed. So your argument is pretty weak.

One thing people should be thinking about is that marriage is the union between a man and a woman, THAT IS WHAT MARRIAGE IS. Now IT has to change to become something else? That does not make any sense, so why don't we just make something else up that will be the union between a man and a man, or a women and a women. Not marriage, marriage is allready something, but something else, that would amount to the union between to people of the same sex. I don't see what the problem is, just make something up like 'barriage' or 'sarriage', but not marriage, that is taken. Marriage is the union of a man and women and it should stay that, but I agree that there should be something for same sex couple, but not marriage.
Reveiw the history of marriage. It's not between a man and a woman, nor is it a religious ceremony.
It's a secular concept. It was used to buy women or men from the family of said women or men. Originally, it was simply used to buy house & sex slaves.

One thing people should be thinking about is that marriage is the union between a man and a woman, THAT IS WHAT MARRIAGE IS. Now IT has to change to become something else? That does not make any sense, so why don't we just make something else up that will be the union between a man and a man, or a women and a women. Not marriage, marriage is allready something, but something else, that would amount to the union between to people of the same sex. I don't see what the problem is, just make something up like 'barriage' or 'sarriage', but not marriage, that is taken. Marriage is the union of a man and women and it should stay that, but I agree that there should be something for same sex couple, but not marriage.

This is an intelligent and well-thought out first post. If only all first posters would use you as an example. It's based on history, science and religion with all of the supporting structure. The grammar is impeccable and your point is hard to argue with.

/\ What I would say if I hadn't read the post.