NationStates Jolt Archive

I am with you but I think our side will lose this battle. In the end all we can do is say we tried to warn you.

Matthew 18:15-18 (New International Version)

A Brother Who Sins Against You
15"If your brother sins against you,[a] go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.'[b] 17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

What sins have been visited upon you, praytell?

Wrong.

A very good argument. I'm sure you've convinced him. You've shown superior debating skills as always.

I am with you but I think our side will lose this battle. In the end all we can do is say we tried to warn you.

Matthew 18:15-18 (New International Version)

A Brother Who Sins Against You
15"If your brother sins against you,[a] go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.'[b] 17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Get off your moral high horse already. The Bible is not the be all and end all of morality.

Okay, is this a threat or you're telling gays you'll give them money?

Seconded. Surely Christians respect and value taxation ?

A very good argument. I'm sure you've convinced him. You've shown superior debating skills as always.

If he EARNS more than a gainsay I'll GIVE HIM more than a gainsay.

This smells like a threat. What consequences? There are no consequences that require signing off on. If some radical homophobe commits an act of violence as the result of gay marriage laws being passed, then that person goes to jail, plain and simple. There are no consequences of giving gays the right to marry, except the consequence of gays getting married.


No for people who break the law. Of course they should go to jail. The consequences in the afterlife, if you are okay with it then we did our job and even have proof.

Why does everyone assume there will be violence or the worst in people?

No for people who break the law. Of course they should go to jail. The consequences in the afterlife, if you are okay with it then we did of job and even have proof.

The afterlife is not yours to command.

I am with you but I think our side will lose this battle. In the end all we can do is say we tried to warn you.

Matthew 18:15-18 (New International Version)

A Brother Who Sins Against You
15"If your brother sins against you,[a] go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.'[b] 17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
\/ This \/
What sins have been visited upon you, praytell?

yes, i think that homosexuality is wrong because the sole purpose of sexual reproduction is to create a baby so that the human race can continue to exist so i don't think that it is natural otherwise a baby will be the end product. and if you think of it if the number of homosexuals outnumber the number of hectrosexuals then soon by the human race would diminsh. but it has been proven that people are born gay but i still think that people have a choice about their sexuality and therefore would not be a threat.

Good thing that the estimate is 3-5% of the population. I think the burgeoning and starving planet full of mewling cabbages will be fine with that rate of gay. What's wrong with you that you worry so about homo outnumbering hetero? Do you live in a gay-heavy area?

So long as they all sign off that they were warned what the consequences might be I am okay with it.

Which consequences would those be? The chance to live happily ever after in love, peace and equality? I think that's the whole idea. And since you can't produce any genuine consequences, I'll just imagine that you were living in your own little world where others' happiness (or indeed, business) is somehow a problem for you.

Why does everyone assume there will be violence or the worst in people?

History.

No for people who break the law. Of course they should go to jail. The consequences in the afterlife, if you are okay with it then we did our job and even have proof.

Why does everyone assume there will be violence or the worst in people?

Because seeking to deny people basic human rights because you have a book that says it's against the rules is already one of the worst things in a person. Why should we expect these same people to suddenly develop morality?

No for people who break the law. Of course they should go to jail. The consequences in the afterlife, if you are okay with it then we did our job and even have proof.

Why does everyone assume there will be violence or the worst in people?

What law are you talking about? If we've made gay marriage legal, what law is broken? You make a vague threat-like statement and want US to explain it to YOU?

Which afterlife would that be?

I assume the worst of anyone so willing to marginalize an entire group of people for no good reason. I assume violence because I've fucking SEEN it.

Good thing that the estimate is 3-5% of the population. I think the burgeoning and starving planet full of mewling cabbages will be fine with that rate of gay. What's wrong with you that you worry so about homo outnumbering hetero? Do you live in a gay-heavy area?



Which consequences would those be? The chance to live happily ever after in love, peace and equality? I think that's the whole idea. And since you can't produce any genuine consequences, I'll just imagine that you were living in your own little world where others' happiness (or indeed, business) is somehow a problem for you.

The consequences in the afterlife if there are any, if you are okay with it then we did our job and even have proof.

That way you can stand by your own decisions without drawing the rest of us into the equation. I believe you have been warned by your fellow man and your neighbor that this is essentially a bad idea. I also believe the church has warned you? So in that case it is on your own head then, would you agree? I'm sure you saw the Biblical quote I presented? So can you claim you were not adequately warned?

If you can stipulate to all the above, I will vote for it.

The consequences in the afterlife if there are any, if you are okay with it then we did our job and even have proof.

That way you can stand by your own decisions without drawing the rest of us into the equation. I believe you have been warned by your fellow man and your neighbor that this is essentially a bad idea. I also believe the church has warned you? So in that case it is on your own head then, would you agree? I'm sure you saw the Biblical quote I presented? So can you claim you were not adequately warned?

If you can stipulate to all the above, I will vote for it.

How does any legislation granting state-recognized marriages to gay citizens "draw you into the equation"? You still think you're headed for Heaven anyway, so I fail to see how any of this is relevant.

I can claim I was not adequately warned because the "warning" came from a large group of paranoid churchgoers who believe in a whole slew of contradictory and imaginary principles. Since no warning has come from any God because no God has talked to me, or the citizens of Vermont, or Congress directly, and the only source for God we have is the fear-laced rantings of people like you, I can honestly say that if THIS was supposed to be a "warning", then no, I was most certainly not adequately warned.

It's hard to stipulate to something that even believers admit to having no proof for. You can use all the spooky language and fearmongering you want -- the end result is that you are not personally affected by gay marriage. So I guess that means you agree to it. Unless you were lying.

The consequences in the afterlife if there are any, if you are okay with it then we did our job and even have proof.
What afterlife? Once again you are making the mistaken assumption that non-christians give a shit about your beliefs beyond fighting having them imposed upon us.
That way you can stand by your own decisions without drawing the rest of us into the equation.
How will you be "drawn into the equation"? Do you think that if a gay couple gets married you'll go to hell? Or is it just if a gay couple near you does it? :confused:
I believe you have been warned by your fellow man and your neighbor that this is essentially a bad idea. I also believe the church has warned you? So in that case it is on your own head then, would you agree? I'm sure you saw the Biblical quote I presented? So can you claim you were not adequately warned?
See first response
If you can stipulate to all the above, I will vote for it.
So, you'll be in favor of gay marriage if everyone becomes christian? I think we'll make do without your vote.

What law are you talking about? If we've made gay marriage legal, what law is broken? You make a vague threat-like statement and want US to explain it to YOU?

Which afterlife would that be?

I assume the worst of anyone so willing to marginalize an entire group of people for no good reason. I assume violence because I've fucking SEEN it.

Sorry to be clear heterosexuals or anyone for that matter who breaks the law by harming a homosexual should in fact go to jail no argument from me. That was for something the other poster said.

Which afterlife, why have you had more than one? I would like to hear about them if you did. Sorry just being funny.


The end of this mortal existence? You know Judgment Day. The church has been preaching restraint since this whole issue started. I really don't see people freaking out if the law goes against their wishes. There will be protests one way or the other. Nobody freaked out in Vermont or in Iowa as far as I know maybe a few but not the majority. Really we have better things to do.

Which afterlife, why have you had more than one?
I like to keep a spare.
The end of this mortal existence? You know Judgment Day.
Again the assumption that non-christians give a shit.
There will be protests one way or the other. Nobody freaked out in Vermont or in Iowa as far as I know maybe a few but not the majority. Really we have better things to do.
But apparently you don't have anything better to do than try to keep equal rights from being granted.

What afterlife? Once again you are making the mistaken assumption that non-christians give a shit about your beliefs beyond fighting having them imposed upon us.

How will you be "drawn into the equation"? Do you think that if a gay couple gets married you'll go to hell? Or is it just if a gay couple near you does it? :confused:

See first response

So, you'll be in favor of gay marriage if everyone becomes christian? I think we'll make do without your vote.


I am going to answer everyone from one post.

Hypothetical: If we drafted a document that you have been warned that this might not be a good idea in the eyes of the church and that you wish to proceed anyway and that any divine punishment should be set your way not to the public, would you sign it?

See this way the church can be absolved, the rest of us can be absolved. It would be just between you and God? What say you?

I am going to answer everyone from one post.

Hypothetical: If we drafted a document that you have been warned that this might not be a good idea in the eyes of the church and that you wish to proceed anyway and that any divine punishment should be set your way not to the public, would you sign it?

See this way the church can be absolved, the rest of us can be absolved. It would be just between you and God? What say you?

I'd sign it, but you'd have to find a way to avoid God's punishment for the hubris of assuming you speak on His behalf.

I like to keep a spare.

Again the assumption that non-christians give a shit.

But apparently you don't have anything better to do than try to keep equal rights from being granted.

So then you would sign it then right? What do you care? It only my superstitions and such.

The end of this mortal existence? You know Judgment Day. The church has been preaching restraint since this whole issue started. I really don't see people freaking out if the law goes against their wishes. There will be protests one way or the other. Nobody freaked out in Vermont or in Iowa as far as I know maybe a few but not the majority. Really we have better things to do.

Better things to do like spend tens of millions of dollars to get legislation added to the books in California to specifically remove the rights of gays there? What part of the Bible says "Thou shalt spend inordinate amounts of money making sure the faggots cannot marry"?

I'd sign it, but you'd have to find a way to avoid God's punishment for the hubris of assuming you speak on His behalf.

I would never speak on God's behalf. I am not remotely qualified. May God forgive me if I offended him in anyway by my statement.

Sorry to be clear heterosexuals or anyone for that matter who breaks the law by harming a homosexual should in fact go to jail no argument from me. That was for something the other poster said.

Then keep your replies clear. Multi-quote button is your friend.

I'm glad you think exacting violence against gay people is bad. You do realize that there are more types of violence than physical, right? Such as denying basic rights to a minority because your anthology of fairy tales says they're icky.

Which afterlife, why have you had more than one? I would like to hear about them if you did. Sorry just being funny.

Let me know when you start.

The end of this mortal existence? You know Judgment Day.

Those two things are different, unless you think that J-Day will come when you, personally, die. What you believe about life after death is what YOU believe, and it shouldn't be made the basis for ANY law governing a society devoted to the freedom to believe as we wish. 'Cause that means I have the right to think you're nuts. And if you're going to claim that allowing something that the Bible frowns upon a grand total of less than a dozen times (compare that to how much it frowns on just about every other offense) is going to somehow generate bad juju for you, then you've got a problem with the Constitution itself for allowing us the freedom to choose our own beliefs. In short, forest -- trees. You're claiming spiritual damage using an argument that includes the Law of the Land as part of the damaging agent. You'd better re-think that line of argument.

The church has been preaching restraint since this whole issue started.

By contributing to campaigns to deny a minority a right granted to every other citizen? That doesn't sound very Christ-like. I wouldn't trust any church as far as I could throw it. They're made of people. People are mob-driven, panicky pack-beasts.

I really don't see people freaking out if the law goes against their wishes.

You don't? Look in a mirror! You basically just said we're all going to hell if gays get the right to marry. Or was your little sermon on "consequences" just another joke?

There will be protests one way or the other. Nobody freaked out in Vermont or in Iowa as far as I know maybe a few but not the majority. Really we have better things to do.

Then why do you keep posting?

I am going to answer everyone from one post.

Hypothetical: If we drafted a document that you have been warned that this might not be a good idea in the eyes of the church and that you wish to proceed anyway and that any divine punishment should be set your way not to the public, would you sign it?

See this way the church can be absolved, the rest of us can be absolved. It would be just between you and God? What say you?

I'll address the last point first...
Even assuming that your religion is right (which by the way, I don't) wouldn't it be between the person and yahweh anyways?

No, I wouldn't sign it. I am not christian and feel no need to acknowledge them at all, let alone by giving the impression that they have (or should have) some say over what non-christians do.

So then you would sign it then right? What do you care? It only my superstitions and such.

Signing your silly hell-indemnification is not a prerequisite to granting equal rights to all people.

You want everyone who disagrees with you to sign a waiver for God.

And you believe that God considers himself legally bound by such a contract.

Wow. Your beliefs sure are....interesting!

So then you would sign it then right? What do you care? It only my superstitions and such.

Then again, there are a few million different religions on this planet. Should we sign a waiver every time we do something that goes against the teachings of at least one ? The time I have to actually, you know, be alive, is limited...

Would YOU sign such waivers for another religion ? Or for 5000 ? Say a religion believes that reading the Bible is a sin...

Better things to do like spend tens of millions of dollars to get legislation added to the books in California to specifically remove the rights of gays there? What part of the Bible says "Thou shalt spend inordinate amounts of money making sure the faggots cannot marry"?

So you would sign it then. Our side could re-allocate that money and your side could spend it on whatever as well. All you have to do is sign saying you were warned?

So you would sign it then. Our side could re-allocate that money and your side could spend it on whatever as well. All you have to do is sign saying you were warned?

Would you sign a waiver anytime you wanted to do something that was against the teachings of another religion?

Hypothetical: If we drafted a document that you have been warned that this might not be a good idea in the eyes of the church and that you wish to proceed anyway and that any divine punishment should be set your way not to the public, would you sign it?

See this way the church can be absolved, the rest of us can be absolved. It would be just between you and God? What say you?

*stunned*

You actually think God wouldn't know who did or didn't support this issue? What kind of limited omniscience is that? Do you honestly ever read what you type before you hit "Submit Reply"?

Not only would I sign it, I'd sign it wearing a cotton-poly blend shirt (also a sin, right?).

I'll address the last point first...
Even assuming that your religion is right (which by the way, I don't) wouldn't it be between the person and yahweh anyways?

No, I wouldn't sign it. I am not christian and feel no need to acknowledge them at all, let alone by giving the impression that they have (or should have) some say over what non-christians do.

No he has punished entire populations before.

No he has punished entire populations before.

So much for benevolence.

So you would sign it then. Our side could re-allocate that money and your side could spend it on whatever as well. All you have to do is sign saying you were warned?

Will you sign my waiver that says you accept all the punishment that may or may not be meted by any agent as a result of the offense I take at the ignorance expressed in your posts?

No he has punished entire populations before.

Before the New Testament, you mean. You fail utterly at your own religion. How sad.

No he has punished entire populations before.

Then what the fuck are you doing worshipping him?

DEMONS punish innocents for the actions of the guilty.

GODS do not.

No he has punished entire populations before.

But apparently, he is thwarted by non-binding legal documents. "Oh, Me, I was totally going to go all Sodom-and-Gomorrah on the US, but I see the dirty heathens signed a waiver declaring that other people weren't responsible for their actions! Somebody call Lucifer and tell him to loan me a lawyer or two; there's got to be a way around this!"

Then what the fuck are you doing worshipping him?

DEMONS punish innocents for the actions of the guilty.

GODS do not.

That's just it- gods do nothing. They don't exist.

But apparently, he is thwarted by non-binding legal documents. "Oh, Me, I was totally going to go all Sodom-and-Gomorrah on the US, but I see the dirty heathens signed a waiver declaring that other people weren't responsible for their actions! Somebody call Lucifer and tell him to loan me a lawyer or two; there's got to be a way around this!"

So you got my vote then. Not that we will get to vote So what do you care what I believe. You said so all along.

Before the New Testament, you mean. You fail utterly at your own religion. How sad.

Anyway you got my vote, you win.

How could it be wrong?
Something that scientifically is proven, "Not a choice", is a morally wrong action?
I didn't wake up one day and say "Hey, I want to like girls!",
Nor did many of you I assume. Like me, true homosexuals don't wake up and say "I want to like boys!"

And for all of you "Eww homosexuals! God hates you!"

Not everybody believes in your God, I don't believe in your God. Leave people alone, allow them to follow their own damn beliefs, if they're gay, they're gay, don't try to fix what isn't broken. There is nothing wrong with it. There's more wrong with you for trying to say they're immoral. I say you're immoral.


Truly Blessed refers to "Sodom" I believe, where as everyone was committing what we today know as Sodomy, in turn, they were destroyed if I'm not mistaken, I haven't read about Sodom in a good while, but Sodomy, which is directly defined as what follows:

1. anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.
2. copulation with a member of the same sex.
3. bestiality

Now wait, if you truly believe that, I hope you're as opposed to oral and anal sex as you are to gays, and bestiality at the very least.
'Cause frankly, you can't take a piece of the bible, and leave another out, and call it 'right'
Similar to the US, that has banned gay marriage in nearly every state, hasn't shown any sort of hatred towards something as harmless as oral sex. Isn't that interesting? The country follows some Christian values, but not all of them, nope, because they're true Christians, and take only the bits and pieces they find right, and use them to enforce THEIR values. Interesting.

Something that scientifically is proven, "Not a choice", is a morally wrong action?
Let me provide a little counter to this particular point: a serial killer who has no choice in his particular upbringing, making him what he is without choice, commits murders which we deem morally wrong. Why is this different?

Let me provide a little counter to this particular point: a serial killer who has no choice in his particular upbringing, making him what he is without choice, commits murders which we deem morally wrong. Why is this different?

Because no-one has the right to murder. Two homosexuals getting it on doesn't harm anyone, murder does harm someone. This would be why murder is and should be illegal, while homosexuality isn't and shouldn't be.

Let me provide a little counter to this particular point: a serial killer who has no choice in his particular upbringing, making him what he is without choice, commits murders which we deem morally wrong. Why is this different?

Is a gay physically harming somebody? Is anyone dying to the cruel hands of a homosexual male / female?
Sure there's gay murderers I'm sure, but there's also straight murderers. That's beside the point, being gay doesn't cause any direct harm to anyone.

I'll go beyond morals here, the Declaration of Independence,

"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

Is that so?
I suppose homosexuality deems you to be 'not a human' or not counting towards the U.S. population?
Where are their 'un-alienated' rights? What was their crime to deserve to be stripped of them?
Where do they get the liberty of marriage? When do they get to find that happiness, and be with the one they love in a bond called "marriage"

Where-as murder, will directly defy another man's rights. Their 'Un-alienated" rights, by murdering somebody you're stripping them of all of those rights. So, in turn, our very country is committing a crime by unjustly stripping somebody of their rights.

Is liking chocolate ice cream wrong?

no but the god given system is the olny system i think that word should be outlawed

Let me provide a little counter to this particular point: a serial killer who has no choice in his particular upbringing, making him what he is without choice, commits murders which we deem morally wrong. Why is this different?

You truly need the difference between murder and marriage explained to you?

Who is harmed when a homosexual gets married? Who is harmed when a serial killer commits murder?

but if we all became homos there wouldnt be any childern and why arent animals homo:mad:

but if we all became homos there wouldnt be any childern and why arent animals homo:mad:

Some are, dolphins, manetes, ect.

That's why were are BORN like this Brijesnica, some men or women just can't have children, is that a 'sin' too.
Just like some people are born black, some white, some people are born gay, some straight.

I was adopted, know why?
My dad couldn't have children, is he immoral?

Brijesnica, there are straights, and there are gays, and there is a fine balance of them, because frankly, it doesn't matter how many there are, we're still reproducing fine, there's more straight people than there are gays, there always will be, we won't be running out of straights anytime soon.

P.S.
Gay's don't necessarily have gay babies.

yes.

but if we all became homos there wouldnt be any childern and why arent animals homo:mad:

1. Homosexuality and bisexuality are found in abundance in the animal kingdom.
2. If we all became like Jesus there wouldn't be any children either. Or did he produce offspring according to you?

Im a muslim :hail:

Im a muslim :hail:

Jesus is still a holy figure to you then ;)
But indeed, Mohammed did not believe in celibacy, so your opinion may be less hypocritical than that of many Christians.

So.. a few pages back I made a list of people that do not reproduce either. Could you tell me which of those people are "bad" according to you ?

EDIT: this one: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14680961&postcount=1479

Im a muslim :hail:

Edit: scrap that post, I read it as 'in a muslim' LOL

Im a muslim :hail:

You say the most random things.

but if we all became homos there wouldnt be any childern and why arent animals homo:mad:

Some animals are, and what makes you think that if homosexuals are granted equal rights that everyone will become one?

yes.

This is getting repetitious...
Why?

Jesus is still a holy figure to you then ;)
But indeed, Mohammed did not believe in celibacy, so your opinion may be less hypocritical than that of many Christians.

So.. a few pages back I made a list of people that do not reproduce either. Could you tell me which of those people are "bad" according to you ?

EDIT: this one: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14680961&postcount=1479

Only gays of course. :rolleyes:

Im not saying anything about religion or adopation but its just wrong why didnt the acient prehistoric man do that:mad:

I personaly dont think it is wrong. If you have feelings for the same sex then that is just the way the person was made to be. what i this is wrong, is for a person to mess around with both genders just for fun

Im a muslim :hail:

So you're ok with lesbians, yes?

7:80 And Lot! (Remember) when he said unto his folk: Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you?
7:81 Lo! ye come with lust unto men instead of women. Nay, but ye are wanton folk.
26:165 What! Of all creatures do ye come unto the males,
26:166 And leave the wives your Lord created for you ? Nay, but ye are froward folk.
27:54 And Lot! when he said unto his folk: Will ye commit abomination knowingly ?
27:55 Must ye needs lust after men instead of women ? Nay, but ye are folk who act senselessly.
29:28 And Lot! (Remember) when he said unto his folk: Lo! ye commit lewdness such as no creature did before you.
29:29 For come ye not in unto males, and cut ye not the road (for travellers), and commit ye not abomination in your meetings ? But the answer of his folk was only that they said: Bring Allah's doom upon us if thou art a truthteller!

Im not saying anything about religion or adopation but its just wrong why didnt the acient prehistoric man do that:mad:

What makes you think that there were no homosexuals back then? Obviously they weren't all homosexuals, but then not everyone now is a homosexual either.

1. Homosexuality and bisexuality are found in abundance in the animal kingdom.
2. If we all became like Jesus there wouldn't be any children either. Or did he produce offspring according to you?

Matthew 19:12.

why didnt the acient prehistoric man do that:mad:

You have no evidence that they didnt. Its been going on throughout history, so there is no real reason to believe they didnt.


That alone, however, is not a good arguement on your part even if it were true. Prehistoric men did a lot of things we dont do anymore. Like function as hunter-gatherers, for example.

You say the most random things.

Euzbillah ni ra shejtan ni ra dzim bissmillah ni rahman ni rahim:hail:see im not saying random stuff thats the baic prayer on bosnian

So, someone is linking this thread to other forums. Far too many March and April 2009 nations making their first posts in this thread.

So, someone is linking this thread to other forums. Far too many March and April 2009 nations making their first posts in this thread.

I think theyre all one noob's puppet.

So, someone is linking this thread to other forums. Far too many March and April 2009 nations making their first posts in this thread.
It's got to be a Myspace forum or something, too, based on the apparent age of the posters.

Happy to have em, though. They're doing an awesome job of making homophobes appear hateful and completely uneducated. :D

The argument that homosexuality is wrong on the basis that it cannot continue the human race is logical.

Ok, but that must mean that everything else that cannot continue the human race must be equally wrong.

Gay people cannot procreate.

Yes, they can. Now, a gay couple cannot procreate together, but that does not keep one or both of them from procreating.

That alone if looking at the perspective the survival of the human race would make it wrong.

Why? Does every single human being have to procreate? Is that the ideal situation for the survival of the human race?

What everyone is really asking is should it be accepted in society. Fine do what you want. If you are stupid enough to think that you are "born gay" than it means that in a generation or two this aberration will correct itself.

You really don't understand biology very well, do you?

I say its stupid beacause their is absolutely no evidence saying that there is a "Gay Gene".

Nope, clearly not.

So please if you are going to speak like you know what you are talking about try thinking about it first so the rest of us dont have to listen to your idiotic comments.

Oh, irony....

I think theyre all one noob's puppet.

That's what I thought. Too much of a coincidence.

That's what I thought. Too much of a coincidence.

Either is a possibility

Let me provide a little counter to this particular point: a serial killer who has no choice in his particular upbringing, making him what he is without choice, commits murders which we deem morally wrong. Why is this different?
Uh....... cause some people got killed? I'm just guessing here.

Either is a possibility
*Lights candles in a pentacle formation*

*Sprinkling of virgin goat blood*

*Ominous Latin incantation*

Oh great and powerful MODs! We humbly beg you to appear and impart unto us your wisdom! Reveal the truth to our unworthy eyes! Is this thread home to common trolls or puppet-trolls?

*Sacrifice of beer, chocolate bars, and spare ribs*

The consequences in the afterlife if there are any, if you are okay with it then we did our job and even have proof.

That way you can stand by your own decisions without drawing the rest of us into the equation. I believe you have been warned by your fellow man and your neighbor that this is essentially a bad idea. I also believe the church has warned you? So in that case it is on your own head then, would you agree? I'm sure you saw the Biblical quote I presented? So can you claim you were not adequately warned?

If you can stipulate to all the above, I will vote for it.

I am really getting angry with you now.

Understand this: I am NOT a Christian.

Since I am NOT a Christian, why the fuck should I have to stipulate to ANYTHING of a spiritual nature to anyone, including and especially you?

Since I am NOT a Christian, why the fuck should I have to stipulate to having met any Christian standards or benchmarks to get protection for MY rights?

What memo did I miss that put YOUR church in charge of ME??

What memo did I miss that informed me that MY rights cannot be protected without YOUR approval??

You go look that up. I'll wait.

*Lights candles in a pentacle formation*

*Sprinkling of virgin goat blood*

*Ominous Latin incantation*

Oh great and powerful MODs! We humbly beg you to appear and impart unto us your wisdom! Reveal the truth to our unworthy eyes! Is this thread home to common trolls or puppet-trolls?

*Sacrifice of beer, chocolate bars, and spare ribs*

The ritual would be more effective if preformed in the sacred grove...I mean Moderation.

I am going to answer everyone from one post.

Hypothetical: If we drafted a document that you have been warned that this might not be a good idea in the eyes of the church and that you wish to proceed anyway and that any divine punishment should be set your way not to the public, would you sign it?

See this way the church can be absolved, the rest of us can be absolved. It would be just between you and God? What say you?
I would throw such a document in your face, with some choice words to go with it.

Which perplexes me somewhat, why the difficulty getting it into the Supreme Court? Since it doesn't matter what the populations think just move ahead.

Whether they should or not, the Supreme Court does gauge public opinion on an issue and will often try to avoid said issue if it is highly controversial - at least until the tide begins to turn on its own.

Thus far, the Supreme Court has punted gay marriage cases on technicalities, rather than make any rulings on the issue.


yes, i think that homosexuality is wrong because the sole purpose of sexual reproduction is to create a baby so that the human race can continue to exist so i don't think that it is natural otherwise a baby will be the end product.

The sole purpose of sexual reproduction is to create a baby. Ok, yeah, that pretty much makes sense.

Of course, it doesn't mean that the sole purpose of sex is to make a baby. In fact, if it was, we really have to wonder why it is such an inefficient process. After all, I've had plenty of sex and haven't had a baby yet!

and if you think of it if the number of homosexuals outnumber the number of hectrosexuals then soon by the human race would diminsh.

Probably, but not very relevant unless you think the proportion of exclusive homosexuals is going to jump for some reason.

but it has been proven that people are born gay but i still think that people have a choice about their sexuality and therefore would not be a threat.

Um....huh?

*stunned*

You actually think God wouldn't know who did or didn't support this issue? What kind of limited omniscience is that? Do you honestly ever read what you type before you hit "Submit Reply"?

Not only would I sign it, I'd sign it wearing a cotton-poly blend shirt (also a sin, right?).
I think it's pretty clear that TB thinks his god is utterly dependent on him to be able to act in this world. He has made clear arguments that he thinks he has to stop gay marriage to prevent every soul on the planet from being condemned to his hell. Of course, he doesn't really care if everyone goes to hell. He only cares about whether it will seem as if he did his job as a Christian of evangelizing to us all about it. So, having realized that nobody gives a shit about his "job" except him and that we are not going to do what he wants just to suit him, he is now in classic, heavenly cubicle-monkey CYA mode. He wants us to sign a waiver and release so that, when the wrath comes down, he can point to the document and say, "See, Boss? I tried! It's not my fault! Please don't burn ME." The rest of us can (literally) go to hell -- he'll have his interests covered.

I am really getting angry with you now.

Understand this: I am NOT a Christian.

Since I am NOT a Christian, why the fuck should I have to stipulate to ANYTHING of a spiritual nature to anyone, including and especially you?

Since I am NOT a Christian, why the fuck should I have to stipulate to having met any Christian standards or benchmarks to get protection for MY rights?

What memo did I miss that put YOUR church in charge of ME??

What memo did I miss that informed me that MY rights cannot be protected without YOUR approval??

You go look that up. I'll wait.
Oooh ooh, I know! Pick me!

America was founded as a Christian democracy, and democracy is when one group of Christians gets to tell all the other Christians and all the non-Christians which parts of the Bible are going to be made into laws.

But apparently, he is thwarted by non-binding legal documents. "Oh, Me, I was totally going to go all Sodom-and-Gomorrah on the US, but I see the dirty heathens signed a waiver declaring that other people weren't responsible for their actions! Somebody call Lucifer and tell him to loan me a lawyer or two; there's got to be a way around this!"
This is totally going to go to Neo Art's head.

I am going to answer everyone from one post.

Hypothetical: If we drafted a document that you have been warned that this might not be a good idea in the eyes of the church and that you wish to proceed anyway and that any divine punishment should be set your way not to the public, would you sign it?

See this way the church can be absolved, the rest of us can be absolved. It would be just between you and God? What say you?

Absolutely, but only if you (and all religious believers) would sign a form stating that you have been warned that religious marriage is not a good idea and that you wish to proceed anyway and that any subsequent domestic abuse or divorce or any other ill outcomes for your marriage will not be viewed as a reflection on your community/state/country but rather as a reflection on the poor values of your faith.

Oooh ooh, I know! Pick me!

America was founded as a Christian democracy, and democracy is when one group of Christians gets to tell all the other Christians and all the non-Christians which parts of the Bible are going to be made into laws.

I almost posted a very angry (and possibly rule-breaking) reply, and then I saw it was you. Don't do that Bottle... :mad:

I would throw such a document in your face, with some choice words to go with it.

Seriously, Truly Blessed's suggestion is the stupidest thing Ive read in this thread thus far.

I am really getting angry with you now.

Understand this: I am NOT a Christian.

Since I am NOT a Christian, why the fuck should I have to stipulate to ANYTHING of a spiritual nature to anyone, including and especially you?

Since I am NOT a Christian, why the fuck should I have to stipulate to having met any Christian standards or benchmarks to get protection for MY rights?

What memo did I miss that put YOUR church in charge of ME??

What memo did I miss that informed me that MY rights cannot be protected without YOUR approval??

You go look that up. I'll wait.

You need to switch to decaf. You have buttons the size of pie plates. In fact, do you have anything that is not a button?

That is the objection that some Christians have and the reason there is resistance. So will you lighten up for crying out loud. Do me a favor, just put me on ignore please then you won't see my posts.

Oooh ooh, I know! Pick me!

America was founded as a Christian democracy, and democracy is when one group of Christians gets to tell all the other Christians and all the non-Christians which parts of the Bible are going to be made into laws.
You've played this game too many times. ;)

You need to switch to decaf. You have buttons the size of pie plates. In fact, do you have anything that is not a button?

That is the objection that some Christians have and the reason there is resistance. So will you lighten up for crying out loud. Do me a favor, just put me on ignore please then you won't see my posts.

Or you could could go away and try to find answers to her questions, we'll wait for ya.

Seriously, Truly Blessed's suggestion is the stupidest thing Ive read in this thread thus far.
Someday I'm going to find (meaning "look for") a clip from the old "Rocky and Bullwinkle" cartoon. It's in the opening titles, and it shows Moose and Squirrel being chased around by lightning bolts that progressively destroy the ground they are standing on. The ground under them gets progressively tinier and tinier until there's nothing left and then they fall. That's what TB's argument is like. Piece by piece it is destroyed, and he just keeps grasping at thinner and thinner straws, getting more and more pathetic. When is he going to finally fall out of it already?

In the end it doesn't matter. Straight couples will still be straight. Gay couples will still be gay. The only people against gay marrige are the people too afraid of change, or they're unwilling to admit that people are different.

Absolutely, but only if you (and all religious believers) would sign a form stating that you have been warned that religious marriage is not a good idea and that you wish to proceed anyway and that any subsequent domestic abuse or divorce or any other ill outcomes for your marriage will not be viewed as a reflection on your community/state/country but rather as a reflection on the poor values of your faith.
I think a closer analogy would be requiring him to sign a waiver before eating a hamburger or any other form of beef, making it clear that he is aware how much Vishnu deplores the slaughter of sacred cattle.

You need to switch to decaf. You have buttons the size of pie plates. In fact, do you have anything that is not a button?

That is the objection that some Christians have and the reason there is resistance. So will you lighten up for crying out loud. Do me a favor, just put me on ignore please then you won't see my posts.

Ah, I see. Once again you get called for trying to impose your religious views on others -- and I am far from the only person to have this kind of argument with you in this forum -- and unable to counter the obvious objections raised, you resort to personal attacks against the poster's personality and demands that the person who is defeating your argument stop talking to you.

Well, tough. Serious objections have been raised, and not just by me. Your religious rules do not apply to people who do not practice your religion. Justify your demand that we have to satisfy your religious beliefs before we can live our lives as equal citizens.

Do that, or admit that you cannot and concede the issue.

its not islamic

its not islamic

Neither am I. Want to try again?

its not islamic
You know, my cat likes to just walk through the room and yell random "meows" at me while I'm talking to someone else, but he doesn't explain what he's talking about, either.

You know, my cat likes to just walk through the room and yell random "meows" at me while I'm talking to someone else, but he doesn't explain what he's talking about, either.


I wonder if he's trying to impose his religion on you too....*muses*

Ah, I see. Once again you get called for trying to impose your religious views on others -- and I am far from the only person to have this kind of argument with you in this forum -- and unable to counter the obvious objections raised, you resort to personal attacks against the poster's personality and demands that the person who is defeating your argument stop talking to you.

Well, tough. Serious objections have been raised, and not just by me. Your religious rules do not apply to people who do not practice your religion. Justify your demand that we have to satisfy your religious beliefs before we can live our lives as equal citizens.

Do that, or admit that you cannot and concede the issue.

Ooh you got me there. I concede. Happy?

You know, my cat likes to just walk through the room and yell random "meows" at me while I'm talking to someone else, but he doesn't explain what he's talking about, either.

i think you randomly meow
Im explaining in the 3 basic religions islam,hebrew(jews),chirstian ts forbiden

i think you randomly meow
Im explaining in the 3 basic religions islam,hebrew(jews),chirstian ts forbiden
Yes, we understand that. Since I am not any of those, why should I care?

Yes, we understand that. Since I am not any of those, why should I care?

convert to islam:)

i think you randomly meow
Im explaining in the 3 basic religions islam,hebrew(jews),chirstian ts forbiden

We know.


You have yet to explain why we should care.

Yes, we understand that. Since I am not any of those, why should I care?

Because the Bearded Sky Wizard demands it!

No, how can a thing you're born with and have no choice about be wrong?
People who are born with crippling disabilities should be left to die, if we cure them, its wrong.

People who are born with crippling disabilities should be left to die, if we cure them, its wrong.

A man named Charles Darwin once hinted that the strongest survive. Keeping the weak alive only prevents the natural cycle.

A State Religion is one that everyone is FORCED to attend. Christiany doesn't force you to attend or believe. The fact that God gave us all free will to choose for yourselfs proves that. Can all other religions say the same?

England had, and still has, a State religion.

It is Christian, and you don't have to attend.

You're talking shit.

/thread

I do not believe you possess the proper PhDs to make such a declaration.

People who are born with crippling disabilities should be left to die, if we cure them, its wrong.

if your born gay thats impossible but cripple should live its not there fault tey are humans and demand that right

Concepts like "do not steal" do not have to be based on the Bible. For some reason societies seem to be able to make such things up by themselves.

Commandments like "worship no other gods before me" are not really codified in law in most western nations.

Not to mention, 'levitical laws' predate the alleged creation of them in the Hebrew scripture. Not only that - but they were literally set in stone, long before the first Hebrew law reached paper.

People tend to ignore that fact that Hebrew writers in Babylon wrote about a series of laws remarkably similar to a code of laws already existing (and in monument form) in Babylon.

Christianity will be here long after all other religions have died.


I bet you think that's original.


Satan has in fact been ruling all who are not Christian. He even trys to rule us as well,
but for those of us who actually live as Jesus teachs Satan can not rule us.
So the question is who do you wish to serve .... Jesus ... or Satan. The
choice is yours to make .... choose well.

I choose the Thrid Party option, thanks. That's the problem with ultimatum dichotomies... they very rarely represent the situation 'on the ground'.

I do not believe you possess the proper PhDs to make such a declaration.
Indeed

if your born gay thats impossible but cripple should live its not there fault tey are humans and demand that right
I was making fun of the poster saying that Homosexuality is apparently something that you're either born with or you're not. I really don't see how people are born pre-coded into homosexuality. Its their right to choose to have sex with whatever they want but I hardly think they're "born with it".

if your born gay thats impossible but cripple should live its not there fault tey are humans and demand that right

There is actually evidence to suggest that there are distinct differences between homosexual and heterosexual brains and these differences are determined by certain chemical conditions within the womb. I'll see if I can't find you a link for that..

I don't believe that you don't have a choice to be gay or not. I think they all have a choice. That being said, I also believe in a very high level of personal freedom. If you want to be gay, or are so inclined to be gay that it would be a difficult decision for you to not be gay, then go ahead. As long as you aren't trying to force others to be gay, you can be gay all you like.

England had, and still has, a State religion.

It is Christian, and you don't have to attend.

You're talking shit.

Episcopalianism is so corrupt as to put it just above Romanism on the level of what is and is not Christian.

Assassinate the bishops o/
Strike down prelacy o/

i think you randomly meow
Im explaining in the 3 basic religions islam,hebrew(jews),chirstian ts forbiden

And this should matter to those of us who don't believe in your shared sky-faerie because?

convert to islam:)

No thanks, not interested in signing up with any of the abrahamic religions.

So then you would sign it then right? What do you care? It only my superstitions and such.

So you believe that YOUR rights should be contingent upon the wishes of others?

Before YOU are allowed to marry, you should have to promise me... something random I make up?

Indeed


I was making fun of the poster saying that Homosexuality is apparently something that you're either born with or you're not. I really don't see how people are born pre-coded into homosexuality. Its their right to choose to have sex with whatever they want but I hardly think they're "born with it".

Tell us the story of the day you decided which gender you were going to be attracted to.

So you would sign it then. Our side could re-allocate that money and your side could spend it on whatever as well. All you have to do is sign saying you were warned?

If you believe in a god, and you believe in a specific god with the attitudes and abilities you claim for yours...

...you don't think he'd already KNOW?

Episcopalianism is so corrupt as to put it just above Romanism on the level of what is and is not Christian.

Assassinate the bishops o/
Strike down prelacy o/

The state church in England is not episcopalian.

Tell us the story of the day you decided which gender you were going to be attracted to.
I chose you sexy

Let me provide a little counter to this particular point: a serial killer who has no choice in his particular upbringing, making him what he is without choice, commits murders which we deem morally wrong. Why is this different?

Because... someone died?

I can't believe that's the question you're asking. Did I miss something?

I chose you sexy

....suddenly, I feel this odd compulsion to jump out of a little ball and say my own name a lot.

So you believe that YOUR rights should be contingent upon the wishes of others?

Before YOU are allowed to marry, you should have to promise me... something random I make up?

I do already per say. That I have not been married before. That I am not being forced to do this. The audience gets to speak now or forever hold your peace. That I will raise my children in the church. That I will remain married until death. All these I solemnly swear.

Let me provide a little counter to this particular point: a serial killer who has no choice in his particular upbringing, making him what he is without choice, commits murders which we deem morally wrong. Why is this different?

You're implying that we agree that homosexuality is morally wrong. That's the debate. I, and many others, do not agree that homosexuality is morally wrong. This makes it very different from your example.

....suddenly, I feel this odd compulsion to jump out of a little ball and say my own name a lot.

In this odd fantasy are you forced to fight of sexy ladies? In mud perhaps?

I do already per say. That I have not been married before. That I am not being forced to do this. The audience gets to speak now or forever hold your peace. That I will raise my children in the church. That I will remain married until death. All these I solemnly swear.

You chose to do that, because those things are contingencies of YOUr belief, that YOU embrace.

I'm not a Christian - what has my marriage got to do with your god? Not a damn thing. The religious elements of marriage are yours (you, personally... you, your church, etc) not inherent characteristics of the contract.

And that's what you appear to be ignoring - America has secular marriage. Indeed, even your own marriage waas a secular event - you just accompanied it with a whole load of ceremonies that YOU enjoy, but none of which was required to make your marriage a marriage.

I was just wondering how people felt towards homosexuality, and also towards civil partnerships.
of course it is the gays should just all go away and make there own country so that we wont have any hate crimes here

If you believe in a god, and you believe in a specific god with the attitudes and abilities you claim for yours...

...you don't think he'd already KNOW?

Yes I do think he knows. I was just curious how far it went. As Chrisitians that is the limit of our responsibility. As I posted with the Bible passage all we have to do is bring the matter before the church, if the person in question won't listen to the church then we treat them as we would a tax collector or a heathen and should therefore let the issue pass.

Before I get hit with a ton of bricks I realize some do not believe, but you also have to realize that some of us do and take this stuff very seriously.

of course it is the gays should just all go away and make there own country so that we wont have any hate crimes here

Actually, why dont the homophobes all do that.


In the middle of the pacific.

I do already per say. That I have not been married before. That I am not being forced to do this. The audience gets to speak now or forever hold your peace. That I will raise my children in the church. That I will remain married until death. All these I solemnly swear.
:eek:
Oh no!!! you are expected to follow the rules of the religion you follow!!!!

This is not the same as expecting people who do not follow your religion to seek your churches permission.

You chose to do that, because those things are contingencies of YOUr belief, that YOU embrace.

I'm not a Christian - what has my marriage got to do with your god? Not a damn thing. The religious elements of marriage are yours (you, personally... you, your church, etc) not inherent characteristics of the contract.

And that's what you appear to be ignoring - America has secular marriage. Indeed, even your own marriage was a secular event - you just accompanied it with a whole load of ceremonies that YOU enjoy, but none of which was required to make your marriage a marriage.

Yes, in fact I had two, one before God in the church and one at city hall.

Super all these Gay Marriages can be performed secularly or through a church willing to do so.

if the person in question won't listen to the church then we treat them as we would a tax collector or a heathen
What enslave them and or beat them to death?
Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.
Seems to be leaning towards killing them...
He shall judge among the heathen, he shall fill the places with the dead bodies; he shall wound the heads over many countries.

Yes, in fact I had two, one before God in the church and one at city hall.

Super all these Gay Marriages can be performed secularly or through a church willing to do so.

Thats exactly what is being proposed.

I still think its the height of arrogance, however, that Christians think that after all this gays would want to get married in their church.

Yes, in fact I had two, one before God in the church and one at city hall.

Super all these Gay Marriages can be performed secularly or through a church willing to do so.

That's what is intended

I am alright with this. Not that I need to be.

Any Happy Trails everyone. I will catch you all later!

Let's say there's this person. We shall name him Joshua. Josh follows a relgion called Religionism. In the Religionist Holy Book, it is written that "Those with brown hair are an abomination". Therefore, Josh isn't fond of people with brown hair.

So Josh writes his state representative and senators and urges them to eliminate the right of people with brown hair to marry other people with brown hair. He goes on TV shows and says how people with brown hair are wrong because "Obviously, people with hair the color of mud must have brains of mud." He tries to give away hair dye, saying "We can help you. We can fix you. All you have to do is change part of who you are forever because my religion says so." He says that people with brown hair spread disease- mainly lice, because research undertaken by the Religonist Hair Clinic says that lice like brown hair best. He says people with brown hair shouldn't be able to adopt, because they might raise the children to "think the brown-haired lifestyle is normal." Also, he preaches Religionism. He says that, because Religionism says that "Religionism is the true religion", it must be the truth, and it must be taught in schools and its values must be forced onto everyone.
-----
Alright. Sounds kinda silly, doesn't it? Obviously, there isn't any basis for people with brown hair being any different than people with other hair colors. Now let me change some things.
-----
Let's say there's this person. We shall name him Joshua. Josh follows a relgion called Christianity. In the Bible, it is written that "Man shall not lie with man as man lies with woman, it is an abomination. (Lev. 18:22)" Therefore, Josh isn't fond of homsexuals.

So Josh writes his state representative and senators and urges them to eliminate the right of homsexuals to marry. He goes on TV shows and says how homosexuals are wrong because "Obviously, men who have sex with men must be brain damaged or something." He tries to send people to camps that "turn people straight again", saying "We can help you. We can fix you. All you have to do is change part of who you are forever because my religion says so." He says that homosexuals spread disease- mainly AIDS. He says homosexuals shouldn't be able to adopt, because they might raise the children to "think the homosexual lifestyle is normal." Also, he preaches Christianity. He says that, because Christianity says that "Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (John 14:6)", it must be the only true religion, and it must be taught in schools and its values must be forced onto everyone.
-----
Is this any less silly? I'm sure you all knew where I was going with this, but the point still remains. To those saying homosexuality is immoral: Just because one group of people has a certain moral code, does it mean that everyone- regardless if they have that same moral code- should follow that code? Should the government not grant certain rights to homosexual citizens just because one group says it shouldn't, regarless of that one thing... what's it called? Oh right. Seperation of church and state.

I do already per say. That I have not been married before. That I am not being forced to do this. The audience gets to speak now or forever hold your peace. That I will raise my children in the church. That I will remain married until death. All these I solemnly swear.

You didn't have to promise any of that to get married and have your marriage recognized by the government (with the possible exception of not being forced to do it).

Those were promises you chose to make because of your particular brand of belief.

of course it is the gays should just all go away and make there own country so that we wont have any hate crimes here

Are you assuming that gays, Mexicans, Blacks, Muslims, etc... are all the same people?

Yes I do think he knows. I was just curious how far it went. As Chrisitians that is the limit of our responsibility. As I posted with the Bible passage all we have to do is bring the matter before the church, if the person in question won't listen to the church then we treat them as we would a tax collector or a heathen and should therefore let the issue pass.


Actually, even that 'responsibility' you claim is arguable. The idea that you bring others before the church directly contradicts the idea that you only cast stones when you are without sin, and that you withhold from judging.


Before I get hit with a ton of bricks I realize some do not believe, but you also have to realize that some of us do and take this stuff very seriously.

I don't have to 'realise' that, at all. Because it's not important.

Every christian in this nation is free to enjoy their personal relationship with god. The constitution guarantees it, and I fight for it.

However, what the collective opinions of those same christians are, regarding whether or not people are allowed basic rights? Irrelevant. YOU should be fighting FOR those rights.

Yes, in fact I had two, one before God in the church and one at city hall.

Super all these Gay Marriages can be performed secularly or through a church willing to do so.

That's what they've been asking for...

Christianity will be here long after all other religions have died. Satan has in fact been ruling all who are not Christian. He even trys to rule us as well,
but for those of us who actually live as Jesus teachs Satan can not rule us.
So the question is who do you wish to serve .... Jesus ... or Satan. The
choice is yours to make .... choose well.

I choose G-d. Not Jesus, not Satan, but G-d.

Seriously, Truly Blessed's suggestion is the stupidest thing Ive read in this thread thus far.

And that is saying something.

Tell us the story of the day you decided which gender you were going to be attracted to.

It's a good question, however, I mean are people born with an attraction to blonds? Or does the upbringing and other factors in their life make them attracted to blonds?

SOmetimes I think people say they are born with homosexuality simply because they think it somehow makes their argument stronger because it means that their is nothing we can do about it, when in reality it shouldn't matter if it is just the way their attractions have developed.

Don’t be a dick toddlers cant physically conceive a baby because they are not fully mature but when they mature they can toddlers are still human they are not separate sexualities like straight and gay. Elderly people can usually no longer have babies because the mother runs out of eggs, not because they have a lack of sperm or eggs during sex.

Why the hell would you compare toddlers to gay people?
And why the hell would you compare elderly people to gay people?

Dingle Nation.
I really don't think you understand your own logic here.
You said that it is homosexuality is wrong because two men cannot have babies. That is implying that ANY sexual act or partnership that does not result in children is immoral. So, according to your logic, condom usage in straight sex is a highway to hell!

The comparison between gays and elderly people and toddlers was to outline your bigotry.
Elderly people cannot reproduce because of a decay in their biological structure. The question is, would you, the bigot that you are, allow two consenting elderly people to have sex? If you say 'yes', you are clearly showing a double standard and your argument flies out the window. If you say 'no', you are a fascist moralistic prick, and this also flies your argument out the window. The point is, you believe that any sexual act that does not involve children is immoral. So would you burst in on your granddad and grandma and tell them they need to pump out some more kids or Satan's sharp stick awaits them? Would you?!

But ultimately, your answer poses a more serious question;
Why do you think you have any right to interfere with or comment on the decisions made in private by consenting adults? I don't really see where you have a position of authority high enough to warrant this. (I also think that, in a liberal society, if such a position were to be obtained, it would become a dictatorship).

Christianity will be here long after all other religions have died. Satan has in fact been ruling all who are not Christian. He even trys to rule us as well,
but for those of us who actually live as Jesus teachs Satan can not rule us.
So the question is who do you wish to serve .... Jesus ... or Satan. The
choice is yours to make .... choose well.

Wrong.

If homosexuality is wrong, why can the prostate only be directly stimulated by having something inserted in your ass....

Ooh you got me there. I concede. Happy?
Yes, thank you. See -- that was easy, wasn't it?


i think you randomly meow
Im explaining in the 3 basic religions islam,hebrew(jews),chirstian ts forbiden
Yes, I figured that out. I was just wishing you would make more of an effort to connect your points to the conversation.

And of course, "it's not islamic" is the only undeniable statement of fact you have. You were wrong about no animals being homosexual, and that bit about cavemen never being homosexual was just something you made up. However, Islam very definitely comes out against homosexuality, so within the context of Islam, a Muslim would describe homosexuality as wrong. No argument there.

But the point of this debate is to ask whether you can understand and accept that for non-Muslims, the rules of Islam mean nothing and have no authority.

I am not a Muslim. Therefore I really do not care what Islam has to say about homosexuality. My religion (animism) expresses no opinion about homosexuality at all. Therefore, I am left to make up my own mind, and I have decided that it's no skin off my nose what other consenting adults do. In fact, in keeping with the beliefs of my religion which urge us to maintain harmony in all aspects of life, I say that homosexuality should be honored as a part of humanity because all forms of beneficial love should be encouraged in the interest of promoting universal spiritual harmony. So when it comes to right or wrong, I say homosexuality is right exactly the same way heterosexual love is right -- both are right and good when they are about about love and happiness and enjoying life.

But I would not expect you, as a Muslim to accept the beliefs of my religion. Do you expect me, as an animist, to act as if I believed in Islam?

convert to islam:)
No, thanks. I'm fine as I am.



if your born gay thats impossible but cripple should live its not there fault tey are humans and demand that right
Are you saying that gays are not human and don't deserve to live?


Indeed


I was making fun of the poster saying that Homosexuality is apparently something that you're either born with or you're not. I really don't see how people are born pre-coded into homosexuality. Its their right to choose to have sex with whatever they want but I hardly think they're "born with it".
I do think some people are born gay, but I also think it does not matter. Regardless of whether it is inherent or a choice, I do not see how it causes anything bad in the world, so how, then can it be called "wrong"?

I choose G-d. Not Jesus, not Satan, but G-d.

Then you made the same choice Jesus did. :D

Then you made the same choice Jesus did. :D

Didn't he pick Box 3? The one with the car? But ended up losing it in the bonus round?

If homosexuality is wrong, why can the prostate only be directly stimulated by having something inserted in your ass....
The prostate. Also known at the Satanic Gay Gland. See, Satan put that there so that you guys would be lured into taking it up the butt. Of course, the fact that you would have to take it up the butt just to find out that there's a prize for taking it up the butt would seem to be a flaw in his evil plot. Because, you know, why would you ever take it up the butt the first time? Hm...a conundrum.

Didn't he pick Box 3? The one with the car? But ended up losing it in the bonus round?
Yeah, he ended up with a double-wide and a donkey.

Yeah, he ended up with a double-wide and a donkey.

That's much dirtier to read, than it probably was to write...

That's much dirtier to read, than it probably was to write...
It was pretty dirty to write. :D I wonder if "Let's Make a Deal" realized what it was planting in people's minds. Thinking of Monty Hall, I'll say, yeah, they did.

Yeah, he ended up with a double-wide and a donkey.

But what about the midget and the tequila?

Then you made the same choice Jesus did. :D

Well, I also believe that Satan works for G-d...

A man named Charles Darwin once hinted that the strongest survive. Keeping the weak alive only prevents the natural cycle.

A man named Charles Darwin also said that 'Whatever the evolutionary cost, to neglect the weak would be an overwhelming evil' (or at least something to that effect -- can't remember the exact wording).

It's not so much survival of the fittest but survival of the best adapted.

Yes, thank you. See -- that was easy, wasn't it?gays are not human and don't deserve to live

hah

A man named Charles Darwin once hinted that the strongest survive. Keeping the weak alive only prevents the natural cycle.
Boy did you miss the point.

Charles Darwin pointed out that the strongest survive and thrive. The fact that homosexual individuals survive and thrive is, therefore, evidence that they are NOT weak. Indeed, according to Darwin's idea of Natural Selection, if homosexuality actually were not an evolutionarily valid solution then it would have been weeded out long ago. It certainly wouldn't be a trait possessed by countless species in countless environments all over the world.

In the end it doesn't matter. Straight couples will still be straight. Gay couples will still be gay. The only people against gay marrige are the people too afraid of change, or they're unwilling to admit that people are different.
nice post.

and a good example of why its a good thing that we are somehow attracting new posters.

some are keepers.

nice post.

and a good example of why its a good thing that we are somehow attracting new posters.

some are keepers.

This.

Boy did you miss the point.

Charles Darwin pointed out that the strongest survive and thrive. The fact that homosexual individuals survive and thrive is, therefore, evidence that they are NOT weak. Indeed, according to Darwin's idea of Natural Selection, if homosexuality actually were not an evolutionarily valid solution then it would have been weeded out long ago. It certainly wouldn't be a trait possessed by countless species in countless environments all over the world.

Hey! Stop being sensible about Darwin's theory! Everyone knows it's just there so people can suggest we kill off the group they think is weak. Or let them die by refusing to help them in any way.

1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Brittany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans

*Lights candles in a pentacle formation*

*Sprinkling of virgin goat blood*

*Ominous Latin incantation*

Oh great and powerful MODs! We humbly beg you to appear and impart unto us your wisdom! Reveal the truth to our unworthy eyes! Is this thread home to common trolls or puppet-trolls?

*Sacrifice of beer, chocolate bars, and spare ribs*

Wow, with that level of offering, you're SERIOUS.

I think it's pretty clear that TB thinks his god is utterly dependent on him to be able to act in this world. He has made clear arguments that he thinks he has to stop gay marriage to prevent every soul on the planet from being condemned to his hell. Of course, he doesn't really care if everyone goes to hell. He only cares about whether it will seem as if he did his job as a Christian of evangelizing to us all about it. So, having realized that nobody gives a shit about his "job" except him and that we are not going to do what he wants just to suit him, he is now in classic, heavenly cubicle-monkey CYA mode. He wants us to sign a waiver and release so that, when the wrath comes down, he can point to the document and say, "See, Boss? I tried! It's not my fault! Please don't burn ME." The rest of us can (literally) go to hell -- he'll have his interests covered.

That resulted in a monitor-cleaning moment. Thank you.

You need to switch to decaf. You have buttons the size of pie plates. In fact, do you have anything that is not a button?

That is the objection that some Christians have and the reason there is resistance. So will you lighten up for crying out loud. Do me a favor, just put me on ignore please then you won't see my posts.

Dance, dance! SHIFT the goalposts aaaaand, DANCE!

Ooh you got me there. I concede. Happy?

No. You're just one person. Now, if you go to all of your religulous friends and tell them how you were convinced that "I think it's icky" doesn't equal "no rights for you!", I would be very happy indeed.

Yes, in fact I had two, one before God in the church and one at city hall.

Super all these Gay Marriages can be performed secularly or through a church willing to do so.

Really? After all of this, you finally say what we've been trying to get through your skull? Dude, you just like arguing, don't you?

How can you say that straight parents only raise straight kids.A friend of mine from school who is gay had straight parents, and i am sure it works the other way around as well

How can you say that straight parents only raise straight kids.A friend of mine from school who is gay had straight parents, and i am sure it works the other way around as well

Hint: the 10 reasons are sarcastic. Even though many gayhaters are silly enough to actually use them - and then cannot understand why people point and laugh.

How can you say that straight parents only raise straight kids.A friend of mine from school who is gay had straight parents, and i am sure it works the other way around as well

Way to state the obvious.

hah
Um...I think you want to keep working on your quote button skills.

How can you say that straight parents only raise straight kids.A friend of mine from school who is gay had straight parents, and i am sure it works the other way around as well
Well, that didn't take long. I was wondered how long it would be before someone would think he was serious, and boom! there it was.

It's understandable that you would miss the sarcasm, though. His parody of those arguments is still horribly, horribly close to the real arguments.

It's understandable that you would miss the sarcasm, though. His parody of those arguments is still horribly, horribly close to the real arguments.

That's the scary part, 'innit?

That's the scary part, 'innit?
It's why I keep jumping out that low window in my desperate frustration.

He left out two...

11. Legalizing gay marriage means churches will be forced to marry gays.
12. Acceptance of homosexuality means everyone will become gay.

I think it may be morally wrong (depending on your moral convictions), but I don't think we should be making decisions about who does what and for what reasons. If a person is inclined to homosexuality, then I think they should have complete power in making that decision (this includes the power to marry, and adopt children as couples).

He left out two...

11. Legalizing gay marriage means churches will be forced to marry gays.
12. Acceptance of homosexuality means everyone will become gay.
Item 12 is covered by his item 2 (or 3).

Well, that didn't take long. I was wondered how long it would be before someone would think he was serious, and boom! there it was.

It's understandable that you would miss the sarcasm, though. His parody of those arguments is still horribly, horribly close to the real arguments.

I shall send you grass seed for the bald spot in the lawn right under your low window. I apologize. :$

He left out two...

11. Legalizing gay marriage means churches will be forced to marry gays.
12. Acceptance of homosexuality means everyone will become gay.

12 is covered, as Mur said, but mea culpa on 11.

Item 12 is covered by his item 2 (or 3).
12 is covered, as Mur said, but mea culpa on 11.

Yeah, looking at it again, you're right... :(