same sex marriage

[BigBarry]

Is it true that the question for Prop 8 was: are you a homophobe? yes___ no___

 

[indianaboy]

But regardless: America separates church from state. Everyone not Christian need not lawfully subject themselves to Christian "morals". So when someone tries to pass a LAW regarding homosexuality, it's best you leave your bible at the door. If you can't argue morality without it, you don't have much inherent morality anyway, eh?

No such thing.

 

[logical4u]

If you are not honoring your parents, you are sinning. It does not matter if you are working in a job that would bring dishonor, acting crimminally, being less than upright, morally, etc, etc, etc. Homosexuals do not have the market cornered on sinning. We all sin, it just seems that the homosexuals are the only ones, that are in complete denial of their sins.
BTW I sin too. I do not go out and ask society to tell me that my sins are okay. I try to do better and ask for the Lord's forgiveness and grace, so that I do not continue to make the same mistakes.

So, if someone's parents are supportive of them being homosexual, it doesn't dishonor their parents, and thus doesn't break any commandment. Great. Glad we have now shown that..

The parents being supportive of sinful behavior is not honoring the parents. It is puting the sin of the child on the parent(s); Christians are obligated to notify someone when they are sinning and to encourage them to improve. If they do not try to stop, the Christian is obligated to avoid them or stop them (crimminal behavior).

But regardless: America separates church from state. Everyone not Christian need not lawfully subject themselves to Christian "morals". So when someone tries to pass a LAW regarding homosexuality, it's best you leave your bible at the door. If you can't argue morality without it, you don't have much inherent morality anyway, eh?

Casual sex does not help society (something the libs are always pushing); it can have the adverse effect, where people are afraid to committ, and miss building strong relationships and families.

So it would seem to me that encouraging committed affectionate monogamous relationships would be beneficial overall, based on what you're saying. Gay marriage would accomplish that goal, yet you are against it. Perhaps you need to rethink that one.

Gay marriage does not build families, naturally. It is a poor imitation (and in some situtations, a mocked, twisted, nightmare). It does not make for two people, so different (opposite sex) joining to become one.

If you want to look at it from a purely social stand point, gay marriage can not grow society without 'stealing' from heterosexual relationships (gays cannot remain 'true to themselves' and reproduce, they must use a heterosexual union to get a child).
If you look at heterosexual couples that do not have children, you will find many that worked to make their communities a better place. I do not know of any such works done by homosexuals.

 

[logical4u]

What is dishonorable about two consenting adults mutually pleasuring eachother?

In this society, two consenting adults "pleasuring each other" is "tolerated", and even "accepted". The dishonorable thing about it: you would not marry them to have a lifetime building into 'the two shall become one'. Even you would have to agree, if you look at our society, many, many crimes are committed, due to one of those "mutually consenting adults" deciding the other must be punished for not 'continuing to please'.

If you don't have enough respect for the person to make a serious committment, you should have enough respect for yourself, not to 'mutually pleasure each other'.

Casual sex does not help society (something the libs are always pushing); it can have the adverse effect, where people are afraid to committ, and miss building strong relationships and families. Exposing children to that behavior can cause even worse problems. Do your own study: as "sex" is declared a "necessity", note how the "value" of life has declined. Instead of protecting individual rights, we protect the "right to abuse others". We would do better if we tried to honor G*d (and indirectly, our parents).

You're one of those straight laced, fanatical, rabid GOP Christians ain't ya No Logic For Anyone?

I bet you probably think that Sanford and his Bible quotes exonerates him from adultery in Argentina as well.

I have tried to answer questions as my faith leads me. I do have a sense of humor, but would not try to disrespect the Lord.

The post here have implied there is nothing against the Lord when participating in homosexuality. I have pointed out the flaws in their arguement. I have shown where that behavior is sinful. I have not said that they are not loved by the Lord, or that I am better in any way (I will have to answer for my own sins, also).

Sanford has sinned as well. His behavior is unacceptable (same term used for homosexuality). His voters will decide his political fate soon enough. As for his spiritual fate, that will be up to the Lord (the same as it will be for homosexuals). Many have already told him, that his behavior was wrong and have called on him to repent (and resign to demonstrate his guilt). He, (like homosexuals) must now decide for HIMSELF if he will try to overcome sin or if he will fall into the trap of sin, and be limited in his spiritual growth.

 

[BigBarry]

Just curious, is it a sin against God to have anal sex with your own wife?

 

[iagainsti]

...Oh good! An uneducated hick who thinks he's a geneticist! Wonderful! I'd ask where you got your degree from, but I can already guess it's a BS. Good thing no PhD geneticist agrees with you. No, I take that back. There's one who does. All the rest think he's a nutjob.

Welcome to the technological era. Unlike the 1920s, we've since figured out what a lil thing called DNA is. We can track DNA within and between species. We can see how DNA is preserved and altered along evolution's path. As someone else mentioned, there is no such thing as "micro" or "macro" evolution. They are terms that religious zealots made up, and no legitimate scientist actually acknowledges them. There is only evolution.

So no, genetics hick, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence which supports evolution.
.

What proof do scientists have that one species transformed into another?
You site "overwhelming amount of evidence", please present it.
What fossils have been found that demonstrates genetical links between species?

DNA evidence is not fully understood. They do not have ANY evidence that one species has "magically" transformed into another species. It is a theory (without a book...maybe Darwin was on LSD).

Jesus Christ, I'm sick of hearing people say this.

Scientists do not have PROOF that one species "transformed" (nice use of straw man) into another. They only have evidence that, so far, backs up the theory. A scientific theory can never be conclusively proven...if ever evidence is found that contradicts the theory of evolution, you can immediately consider it wrong. However, so far, none has.

No, DNA evidence is not fully understood. But from what we do understand, it firmly backs up the theory of evolution. Yes, it is a theory, NOT a fact.

Now here's the part that really bugs me...when people say they "believe" in microevolution but not macroevolution. The reason people who don't "believe" in evolution choose not to deny microevolution is that it's undeniable. It's happening right now with viruses, and is the reason the flu vaccine has to be changed every year.

The part people have trouble accepting isn't even that these small mutations that happen in species (microevolution) can happen again and again over time, eventually changing the species (macroevolution). That, also, has been documented by the domestication of animals. Dogs, cats, horses, etc...we can easily see how, over time, people breeding only the animals with the qualities they were looking for brought about drastic changes in the species. The thing is that domestication happened because we as humans brought it about on purpose.

The part people have trouble accepting is that macroevolution can happen naturally, without our intervention. And I don't see how, if you acknowledge that microevolution happens naturally all the time, it's such a big leap to acknowledge that if microevolution happens to the same species many times over a long period, that species can change ("magically," as you so intelligently put it).

And yes, there is evidence to back it up...DNA, fossils, the archaeological record, you name it. However, this evidence does not PROVE evolution, it simply fits in with the theory, as I said earlier. No one said that evolution is a fact, that it MUST HAVE happened. To call it a fact would be ridiculous...even the theory of gravity is not a fact.

 

[ABikerSailor]

In this society, two consenting adults "pleasuring each other" is "tolerated", and even "accepted". The dishonorable thing about it: you would not marry them to have a lifetime building into 'the two shall become one'. Even you would have to agree, if you look at our society, many, many crimes are committed, due to one of those "mutually consenting adults" deciding the other must be punished for not 'continuing to please'.

If you don't have enough respect for the person to make a serious committment, you should have enough respect for yourself, not to 'mutually pleasure each other'.

Casual sex does not help society (something the libs are always pushing); it can have the adverse effect, where people are afraid to committ, and miss building strong relationships and families. Exposing children to that behavior can cause even worse problems. Do your own study: as "sex" is declared a "necessity", note how the "value" of life has declined. Instead of protecting individual rights, we protect the "right to abuse others". We would do better if we tried to honor G*d (and indirectly, our parents).

You're one of those straight laced, fanatical, rabid GOP Christians ain't ya No Logic For Anyone?

I bet you probably think that Sanford and his Bible quotes exonerates him from adultery in Argentina as well.

I have tried to answer questions as my faith leads me. I do have a sense of humor, but would not try to disrespect the Lord.

The post here have implied there is nothing against the Lord when participating in homosexuality. I have pointed out the flaws in their arguement. I have shown where that behavior is sinful. I have not said that they are not loved by the Lord, or that I am better in any way (I will have to answer for my own sins, also).

Sanford has sinned as well. His behavior is unacceptable (same term used for homosexuality). His voters will decide his political fate soon enough. As for his spiritual fate, that will be up to the Lord (the same as it will be for homosexuals). Many have already told him, that his behavior was wrong and have called on him to repent (and resign to demonstrate his guilt). He, (like homosexuals) must now decide for HIMSELF if he will try to overcome sin or if he will fall into the trap of sin, and be limited in his spiritual growth.

So, lemmie get this straight............you think that homosexuality is against God?

Okay, let me ask you something else.............do you know anything about Judaism, you know, the religion that Christianity developed from (remember, Jesus was a Jew)?

In their belief, each person is a small piece of God Himself that He carved out from under His Throne of Glory with the blade of self will, and inserted into the embryo created by your parents, which powers your nervous system and is actually your Soul. Also, according to their belief system, they understand that God is actually both male and female.

Which, incidentally, explains when Yeshua (Jesus) was asked what is the greatest Commandment, He stated "love God above all else (remember where you came from), and love one another like you would love God" (remember where everyone else came from, as they are also a small piece of God). Buddhists believe along those lines as well.

So, since YOU PERSONALLY believe that homosexuality is a sin, and that it should not be done, you then condemn those who participate in it, and then want to consign them to Hell.

Nice piece of work for someone who just stated they don't like blasphemy.

 

[Sunni Man]

Just curious, is it a sin against God to have anal sex with your own wife?

Yes

 

[BigBarry]

Just curious, is it a sin against God to have anal sex with your own wife?

Yes

Why, is that actually mentioned in the bible or koran...?

 

[Sunni Man]

Just curious, is it a sin against God to have anal sex with your own wife?

Yes

Why, is that actually mentioned in the bible or koran...?

Islam prohibits anal sex as an unnatural practice.

Muhammad said, “One who does anal sex has disbelieved in Islam”.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Sodomy = anal sex.

God said don't do it.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

The parents being supportive of sinful behavior is not honoring the parents. It is puting the sin of the child on the parent(s); Christians are obligated to notify someone when they are sinning and to encourage them to improve. If they do not try to stop, the Christian is obligated to avoid them or stop them (crimminal behavior).

But wait! The bible says nothing about gay marriage. Anywhere. It's not a sin. I've asked this thread several times to point out where the act of gay *marriage* is mentioned in the bible. You can't. It's not.

Gay marriage does not build families, naturally. It is a poor imitation (and in some situtations, a mocked, twisted, nightmare). It does not make for two people, so different (opposite sex) joining to become one.

Why doesn't it build families? What do you even consider a family? By the way, I liked how you completely skirted the issue of how gay marriage is somehow hurting the sanctity of heterosexual marriage. How? OK let's say there's a husband and wife in Florida, and suddenly a gay couple marries in Massachusetts. How is the Florida couple affected?

As for needing two "so different" people joining to become one: I can show you two homosexual people that are very different. Meanwhile, ignorant white hicks who are all inbred from one another in a small town getting married as husband and wife cuz they think and act exactly the same doesn't really seem like "so different" people joining to me. Why do people need to be different to be married? You can't back a lick of the garbage you're spewing.

If you want to look at it from a purely social stand point, gay marriage can not grow society without 'stealing' from heterosexual relationships (gays cannot remain 'true to themselves' and reproduce, they must use a heterosexual union to get a child).
If you look at heterosexual couples that do not have children, you will find many that worked to make their communities a better place. I do not know of any such works done by homosexuals.

That's cuz you're a moron. Have you tried actually looking? Wait, let's take a step back: how many loving monogamous homosexual couples do you know? Let's face it: you're a homophobic hick who would be too scared of a gay person to even ask what they do for their community. You don't know of any such works because you don't want to look.
The LGBT Center of Greater Cleveland: LGBT Center of Greater Cleveland
The LOFT
The Center Orange County - Your LGBT Community Center
The list goes on and on of gay community service centers. Are you really that naive in thinking that only straight people give back to their communities? really? Does blindness run in your family or was that a result of blunt trauma to the head?

No, DNA evidence is not fully understood. But from what we do understand, it firmly backs up the theory of evolution. Yes, it is a theory, NOT a fact.

Just to go off that and clarify a bit further: scientific theory is more or less the equivalent of fact. Gravity is a scientific theory. It holds the same weight of fact as evolution in the science community.

But, as iagainsti very clearly pointed out: all evidence supports evolution - none goes against it. DNA, fossil records, you name it.

 

[KittenKoder]

We could abolish marriage and go back to how families were raised in the past before such "knot tying" occurred, where every child was raised by all the women and men who were incapable of doing anything else, old people, pregnant people, disabled, and their parents were off working the fields, hunting, etc..

 

[paperview]

Sodomy = anal sex.

God said don't do it.

Actually sodomy is 'unnatural sex' which includes even oral between members of the same or opposite sex.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

We could abolish marriage and go back to how families were raised in the past before such "knot tying" occurred, where every child was raised by all the women and men who were incapable of doing anything else, old people, pregnant people, disabled, and their parents were off working the fields, hunting, etc..

um... why?

 

[KittenKoder]

We could abolish marriage and go back to how families were raised in the past before such "knot tying" occurred, where every child was raised by all the women and men who were incapable of doing anything else, old people, pregnant people, disabled, and their parents were off working the fields, hunting, etc..

um... why?

People keep saying they want traditional family, that's as traditional as you get.

 

[strollingbones]

In the United States same sex marriage doesnt have to do with religious institutions recognizing the marriage rather the state, which is a secular democracy, recognizing it.

And, of course, marriage is not a concept that is unique to Christianity... Also, if a certain group of Christians wants to recognize same sex marriage its their decision. No demoniation of christianity follows everything as stated in the bible. ALL and I do mean ALL christians pick and choose what they want to believe from the bible.

where does it say in the bible "just use the parts that suits you and you'll be alright".

o shut up froggy...i am late to this debate...but are you following the bible to the letter? somehow i seriously doubt that....do you wear blended cloths? do you dare plant two crops in one field? are you taking slaves from canada or mexico? the list just goes on and on...for example...how is the sun rotating around the earth working for ya?

 

[KittenKoder]

Sodomy = anal sex.

God said don't do it.

Actually sodomy is 'unnatural sex' which includes even oral between members of the same or opposite sex.

Or butt plugs, dildos, strap-ons, porn movies, masturbation, whips and chains, leather, etc., etc., etc..

Shit I know more about that subject than I really should.

 

[JW Frogen]

Just curious, is it a sin against God to have anal sex with your own wife?

No. But it is a sin to say her anus looks fat when your cock is in it.

 

[KittenKoder]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4XnplSo8I4]YouTube - Miss Swan at a gay bar[/ame]