Do you seriously believe

Again, arguing to points that aren't being made. You people want to make it about religion. It isn't about religion. You have to do that or you have no excuse for exerting government control over religion..

But this topic isn't about religion. It's about why homosexuals can't and shouldn't marry each other..and it has nothing to do with religion.




I haven't seen one argument that it should be rejected on the base of "God doesn't like it". So try really hard to be honest and stop muddying the water by pretending it's about religion. It isn't.

GOOD. No more quotes from religious texts, religious leaders, etc. That was easy.

Homos can't be married because homos can't have sexual intercourse. Only a man and a woman can have sexual intercourse.

buy a dictionary, meathead
 
GOOD. No more quotes from religious texts, religious leaders, etc. That was easy.

Homos can't be married because homos can't have sexual intercourse. Only a man and a woman can have sexual intercourse.

buy a dictionary, meathead

I have a dictionary, goose lips. Homosapiens have two sex organs, a penis and a vagina. Inserting your penis into the mouth or the anus is a "sexual act", not "sexual intercourse". Didn't you take biology or did you drop out?
 
Homos can't be married because homos can't have sexual intercourse. Only a man and a woman can have sexual intercourse.

buy a dictionary, meathead

I have a dictionary, goose lips. Homosapiens have two sex organs, a penis and a vagina. Inserting your penis into the mouth or the anus is a "sexual act", not "sexual intercourse". Didn't you take biology or did you drop out?

was it embarrassing wearing a helmet to school?
 
Not at all. I don't think government should enforce morals. I don't object to homosexual marriage on a moral basis. I object to it on the basis that it isn't marriage when two homosexuals reject the favored construct for raising children, but insist we all pretend they are doing the exact same thing as married heteros.

They reject the construct. They don't want to be a part of it. That's fine, they have the right to do that..but in rejecting that, it means we don't just close our eyes and say "ok ok, you're married anyway". When you reject something, you don't get to force people to pretend you are participating. If you were offered a cush job, and rejected it for a lower paying, harder job...should we be forced to pay you at the rate of the cush job and provide you with all the benefits?

Nope. You made your choice. If you change your mind, it's right there. But it's crap to pretend that they're being "forced" to live by anybody else's standards. They reject the standard...but they are attempting to force us to give them the benefits of the construct they don't want to participate in. It's ridiculous, and has nothing to do with morality, except that I guess it's a sign of a moral person to accept the consequences of their choices and actions.

Married gay people or two non-married gay people raising a child aren't insisting "we all pretend they are doing the exact same thing as married heteros." They are just raising their kids the same way a divorced mother, a widowed father, a couple raising their nieces and nephews after a tragedy, grandparents rearing their grandchildren, OCTOMOM, and all sorts of other legally recognized family units do it.

Gay family units are not rejecting the construct, they are embracing it.

Divorced mothers, widowed fathers aren't called "married". An aunt and her husband are. Octomom isn't married. Grandparents are.

So is Octomom being denied a right because we don't call her married? After all, she isn't.

Fair point.

So perhaps "Marriage" shouldn't be a government function. There should be households with government treatment as such and "Marriage" should be a social and religious status.
 
I don't think that's ever going to happen.

Meanwhile, we have it. Just because the government shouldn't be involved doesn't mean we need to legislate it into something else that we don't want or need. Particularly based on a lie. Gays aren't being denied the right to marry as everybody else. They can marry, just as everybody else. Or they can choose not to.
 
I don't think that's ever going to happen.

Meanwhile, we have it. Just because the government shouldn't be involved doesn't mean we need to legislate it into something else that we don't want or need. Particularly based on a lie. Gays aren't being denied the right to marry as everybody else. They can marry, just as everybody else. Or they can choose not to.

I'm not sure why this is such a big issue to you but I hope you continue to keep your mind open to all things (like the coming notoriety of gay conservatives).
 
Oh, I don't know. I think the single most important cornerstone of our society and our nation is worthy of protection, that's all. I like preserving an ideal.
 
And I don't think it's a good precedent to bow to people who accept the torture of children as valid *research* about the sexuality of children, and who use those *studies* to arrange lesson plans about sex that are taught to children....
 
Just curious.

hatersgonnahate.jpg


"Lord, am I sinning against you and my fellow brother by committing sexual acts with someone of the same sex?"

-or-

"Lord, am I sinning against you and my fellow brother if I'm hating someone because of their sin?"

At the end of the day, we'll all have to answer for our actions, etc. However, there's a big difference between struggling with a sin and saying something is NOT a sin.


.
 
Both of yours seem to be based on judging others.

I'm saying it's not a sin.

Here's a question for you. What if two Christian gays want to get married. Of course, they don't live in or near any of the States that would allow them to wed, so they take their vows alone before God and hope to make it legal in the future.

What is your problem with this picture.

And I really hope you don't open with gays can't be Christians.
 
Look, folks. There are two kinds of marriage in the US: religious and civil. Civil is run by the government, which is required to be neutral towards religion. (Not against, not for, but neutral.) Gay marriage is about civil marriage, not religious marriage.

If you believe that homosexuality is a sin, that's your right. The US government should not, and will not, tell churches who they can marry. And in the eyes of churches, a marriage is not recognized until conducted by a religious official before God. Therefore, allowing homosexuals to attain civil marriage should not be a big deal.

Again, even if you believe that's a sin, it's your belief. Don't force others to accept your faith.
 
Gays have teh right to get married. Don't force others to accept your faith. They can enter into marriage contracts, they can share their lives and their property and their children any way they want.

But this is about the gay lobby forcing the majority to come into line with their beliefs. It isn't about rights at all. It's about the progressives forcing their ideals and their morality and their beliefs upon a resistant public.

So stop lying about this being about us forcing anyone upon anyone. YOu guys are the ones pushing your lifestyle upon us. It has nothing to do with rights. The gay lobby doesn't give a rat's ass about rights. If they did, they would be more concerned about the rights of the children who were brutalized to provide them with the false talking point that homosexuality is rampant, that all children are sexual from birth, and we need to remove the social restraints that protect children.
 
Last edited:
Well, since they also love their fathers, brothers, sons, uncles, nephews, etc. I would say that loving God in that sense would not be a problem.

It's the "in love" that they are opposing.



Love is love.....

Actually no. At least not for Christians. The Bible describes two of them.

Agape - love for someone even if you do not know or like him or her.

Phileo - Brotherly affection

There is also Eros- which we know as sexual love, which is not mentioned in the Bible because God is more concerned about how we treat him AND each other rather than on our physical sensations.

Types of love
 
Here's a question for you. What if two Christian gays want to get married. Of course, they don't live in or near any of the States that would allow them to wed, so they take their vows alone before God and hope to make it legal in the future.

A Christian minister does not have the authority to approve what God doesn't approve.
 
Here's a question for you. What if two Christian gays want to get married. Of course, they don't live in or near any of the States that would allow them to wed, so they take their vows alone before God and hope to make it legal in the future.

A Christian minister does not have the authority to approve what God doesn't approve.

Re-read the question, bible app.
 
Well, since they also love their fathers, brothers, sons, uncles, nephews, etc. I would say that loving God in that sense would not be a problem.

It's the "in love" that they are opposing.



Love is love.....

Actually no. At least not for Christians. The Bible describes two of them.

Agape - love for someone even if you do not know or like him or her.

Phileo - Brotherly affection

There is also Eros- which we know as sexual love, which is not mentioned in the Bible because God is more concerned about how we treat him AND each other rather than on our physical sensations.

Types of love

Naw, love is love. There are different ways to describe it, but it's still all love.

And sexual love is mentioned in the bible, you twit:

"The Song of Songs is unique within the Hebrew bible: it shows no interest in Law or Covenant or Yahweh the God of Israel, nor does it teach or explore Wisdom like Proverbs or Ecclesiastes (although it does have some affinities to Wisdom literature, as the ascription to Solomon indicates); instead, it celebrates sexual love."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Song_of_Songs
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top