The looming war over gay marriage

[logical4u]

"Legitimizing" homosexual marriage would go against 'moral' laws (the ten Commandments) and cause many more problems for society. It would not be beneficial to society or people. It would only serve to give those that do not use self-control the right to 'use' & 'abuse' others.

And here you fail at pointing out ANY of those ills that it will cause for society. Here is one moral for you - marriage helps curtail infidelity. It builds a more stable relationship where there is more to a couple than fickle feelings. Legitimizing gays would not go against ANY MORAL LAW AT ALL. Forget that the 10 commandments are not law either. DO NOT BRING RELIGON INTO THIS. That is a massive false argument. Religion is NOT the base of state marriage or else atheists would be SOL.

If "gay" is not a choice, why are there ex-homosexuals? Why are there people that are attracted to the same sex, but use self control and do not act on those 'temptations'?

So you are telling me that one day you woke up and said “hey I think I am going to be attracted to the opposite sex from now on.” Bullshit. It happens automatically and without your consent. I do not choose what arouses me, that is in my biology.

If you read the previous posts, you would see the 'moral analogy' is a small part of this.
The problem is, people that support homosexual marriage bring up an arguement, and when it is demonstrated not to have merit, they change the subject to another 'part'. When they have gone through all there falsehoods, someone else that supports homosexual marriage starts over at the beginning. Go back and read the posts.

You are saying that 'being homosexual' is hard-wired. There is no proof that it is. There are examples of people that participated in a homosexual lifestyle 'choosing' to go straight (many are currently trying to be included in anti-discrimmination laws, due to the harrassment from 'homosexuals'). Also, because 'you' want something does not mean you have to fall for that temptation: alcoholics, drug addicts, cleptos, etc have made choices, some go for the temptation, others overcome it, and work to be better people.

Question: if homosexuals that support 'marriage', redefine marriage, what makes you think there will be 'fidelity'? If the same people can 'redefine' something that has been set for 'eons', what makes you think the 'redefinition' will stop with the 'partners' and not other aspects of 'marriage'? Homosexual 'marriage' is about introducing 'evil' in a legitimate way to society (it may be, just a tiny, tiny bit evil, but the toe will be in the door).

Please point out what 'evil' following the 10 Commandments brings.
Paraphrased:
1. You will not think there is any higher power than the Lord, everyone's G*d
2. You will not worship any other power: earth, the environment, money, political power, etc.
3. You will not call on me to back up your word for frivolous causes (see #2), or use my name to justify falsehoods.
4. Remember the Lord once a week (humans can't learn from recent history, your minds must be refreshed weekly or you will forget who made you and your world)
5. Honor your mother and father (do not shame them, do not do anything to put 'their' immortal life in danger with 'your' sins). Do not make them choose between G*d and their children.
6. Thou shall not murder (kill with no reason or for convenience).
7. Thou shall not commit adultery. Do not behave in a lewd or perverse way with ANY person.
8. Do not steal (kidnap).
9. Do not bear false witness. Do not use words to destroy a person, let their action testify to their honor.
10. Do not covet. Do not take ANYTHING that belongs to another person without their agreement. This includes electronics, autos, jobs, children by seduction, animals, etc.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Why do so many people accept that sexuality is hardwired when it's the way they want people to be (straight) but not if it's something the preacher tells them is 'evil'?

 

[Father Time]

Why do so many people accept that sexuality is hardwired when it's the way they want people to be (straight) but not if it's something the preacher tells them is 'evil'?

To try to avoid the obvious comparisons once you realize sexuality isn't a choice.

 

[JD_2B]

Whether there will be fidelity or not is not the issue here. Anyone can have sex with someone else before they get married.. I do not know how that either increases or decreases their chances of living together "til death do they part", but I know a lot of people who are allowed to get married, and be married are allowed to do this beforehand, and even technically allowed to cheat, based on the government's standards, in many states.
Marriage can be religious or it can simply be an enforceable contract between two consensual adults.

I totally understand what you are getting at here, though.. I just don't think that the religious aspect should be the sole consideration here. After all, I can shoot someone who I see trying to rape someone, and yet "Thou shalt not kill"..

We aren't supposed to commit adultery, and this includes (biblically) marrying and having sex with a divorced OR widowed woman. Yet this is allowed..

I can give you a legal exception to each and every one of those ten commandments...

And a little reminder- The slippery slope that ended up with us totally disregarding the ten, really started thousands of years ago. That does not condone anything religiously, but why would you be so overly concerned anyways? If you believe the bible, then you should also know that all the homosexuals and homosexuality will be destroyed, in the end times. Why waste your time trying to save people who can't be saved? God said it is a waste of your breath!

 

[FA_Q2]

You are saying that 'being homosexual' is hard-wired. There is no proof that it is.

And I ask again, at what point did you choose to be attracted to women? YOU DO NOT GET TO MAKE THAT CHOICE. IT HAPPENS AUTOMATICALLY. You can try and bury your sexuality but it almost never works. Many gays have tried to be straight but you can’t simply turn off what you sexually desire

If you read the previous posts, you would see the 'moral analogy' is a small part of this.
The problem is, people that support homosexual marriage bring up an argument, and when it is demonstrated not to have merit, they change the subject to another 'part'. When they have gone through all there falsehoods, someone else that supports homosexual marriage starts over at the beginning. Go back and read the posts.

I have only brought up ONE argument with ONE question and you have yet to refute it at all. The problem is all of the gay hatters out there shift arguments all over the place until they end up here where you are with the ‘evil’ statement and religion – NETHER OF WITCH HAS ANY BARRING ON CIVIL MARRIAGES. I agree that you church should not have to marry gay couples but the state should never take away from a specific group or people.

Question: if homosexuals that support 'marriage', redefine marriage, what makes you think there will be 'fidelity'? If the same people can 'redefine' something that has been set for 'eons', what makes you think the 'redefinition' will stop with the 'partners' and not other aspects of 'marriage'? Homosexual 'marriage' is about introducing 'evil' in a legitimate way to society (it may be, just a tiny, tiny bit evil, but the toe will be in the door).

And I have already informed you haw the legal definition is being CHANGED TO NOT INCLUDE GAYS more than changed to include them. It may not fit YOUR definition of marriage but I don’t really care how you define it. The ‘evil’ statement is where you finally show your true colors. There is NOTHING EVIL ABOUT GAYS. You cannot demonstrate a single fact that is inherently evil about being gay. That is your religion talking now and religion has no right defining the right of other citizens.

un logical4u
Please point out what 'evil' following the 10 Commandments brings.

Where did I say anything about the 10 being evil? YOU ARE INJECTING THE CONCEPT OF YOUR MORALITY INTO THIS. Your morality does not define the law.

JD
Whether there will be fidelity or not is not the issue here.

No it is not. I was just responding to the concept that there is NO good from gay marriages when in fact there are many advantages for the couple’s happiness as well as for society. That is just one that benefits both, though it would be better worded as stability rather than fidelity.

I totally understand what you are getting at here, though.. I just don't think that the religious aspect should be the sole consideration here.

I do not think that religion has any place in this issue. It is a state marriage that is in question as the sovernty of each church to perform the rituals must be maintained no matter what the state decides. It is a legitimate worry for the anti movement though as I stated earlier (I think that it was in this gay marriage thread but it might be in the other one going on right now).

 

[JD_2B]

Fa_Q, I was responding to logical4U's post. I was not addressing you, but thanks for responding to me anyways.. =)

 

[logical4u]

Whether there will be fidelity or not is not the issue here. Anyone can have sex with someone else before they get married.. I do not know how that either increases or decreases their chances of living together "til death do they part", but I know a lot of people who are allowed to get married, and be married are allowed to do this beforehand, and even technically allowed to cheat, based on the government's standards, in many states.
Marriage can be religious or it can simply be an enforceable contract between two consensual adults.

I totally understand what you are getting at here, though.. I just don't think that the religious aspect should be the sole consideration here. After all, I can shoot someone who I see trying to rape someone, and yet "Thou shalt not kill"..

We aren't supposed to commit adultery, and this includes (biblically) marrying and having sex with a divorced OR widowed woman. Yet this is allowed..

I can give you a legal exception to each and every one of those ten commandments...

And a little reminder- The slippery slope that ended up with us totally disregarding the ten, really started thousands of years ago. That does not condone anything religiously, but why would you be so overly concerned anyways? If you believe the bible, then you should also know that all the homosexuals and homosexuality will be destroyed, in the end times. Why waste your time trying to save people who can't be saved? God said it is a waste of your breath!

"Thou shall not murder" (otherwise we would all die because we all kill animals and plants to live.
Yeshua explained divorce as something man came up with, not G*d. It was "tolerated", not accepted. It is still a sin, but now sins can be forgiven (if you are divorced and 'repent', to become a different, better person, it is not the same person, re-marrying); if you do not repent and marry in the 'same state of sin', then you are committing 'sin'.

Yeshua also told us to spread the "Good News" (the gospel), if we neglect to tell homosexuals of the forgiveness of sins and the 'hope' of redemption, we are sinning (in allowing them to continue to sin in ignorance). If we (Christians), do not stop the falsehoods (saying that the homosexual actions are not sins), then again, we can be held accountable for those sins.

I am 'trying' (I am not that good at it) to follow His teachings and to let others know, that Yeshua loves them, as they are, but has a better plan for them, if they only try to follow Him. Without Him, they will be as a blind man, stumbling on a steep path, with Him, the path will be made smoother, "they" have the choice.

I did not ask for a 'legal exception', I asked 'anyone' to point out evil in the 10 Commandments. If you cannot point out 'evil', it would stand to reason, the laws must be 'good'. Therefore a good and just Lord would not specify an act as 'evil' or 'wrong' if it was not against other people (and the Lord), unless it was.

 

[logical4u]

You are saying that 'being homosexual' is hard-wired. There is no proof that it is.

And I ask again, at what point did you choose to be attracted to women? YOU DO NOT GET TO MAKE THAT CHOICE. IT HAPPENS AUTOMATICALLY. You can try and bury your sexuality but it almost never works. Many gays have tried to be straight but you can’t simply turn off what you sexually desire

If you read the previous posts, you would see the 'moral analogy' is a small part of this.
The problem is, people that support homosexual marriage bring up an argument, and when it is demonstrated not to have merit, they change the subject to another 'part'. When they have gone through all there falsehoods, someone else that supports homosexual marriage starts over at the beginning. Go back and read the posts.

I have only brought up ONE argument with ONE question and you have yet to refute it at all. The problem is all of the gay hatters out there shift arguments all over the place until they end up here where you are with the ‘evil’ statement and religion – NETHER OF WITCH HAS ANY BARRING ON CIVIL MARRIAGES. I agree that you church should not have to marry gay couples but the state should never take away from a specific group or people.

And I have already informed you haw the legal definition is being CHANGED TO NOT INCLUDE GAYS more than changed to include them. It may not fit YOUR definition of marriage but I don’t really care how you define it. The ‘evil’ statement is where you finally show your true colors. There is NOTHING EVIL ABOUT GAYS. You cannot demonstrate a single fact that is inherently evil about being gay. That is your religion talking now and religion has no right defining the right of other citizens.

Where did I say anything about the 10 being evil? YOU ARE INJECTING THE CONCEPT OF YOUR MORALITY INTO THIS. Your morality does not define the law.

JD
Whether there will be fidelity or not is not the issue here.

No it is not. I was just responding to the concept that there is NO good from gay marriages when in fact there are many advantages for the couple’s happiness as well as for society. That is just one that benefits both, though it would be better worded as stability rather than fidelity.

I totally understand what you are getting at here, though.. I just don't think that the religious aspect should be the sole consideration here.

I do not think that religion has any place in this issue. It is a state marriage that is in question as the sovernty of each church to perform the rituals must be maintained no matter what the state decides. It is a legitimate worry for the anti movement though as I stated earlier (I think that it was in this gay marriage thread but it might be in the other one going on right now).

Nothing is being taken away from homosexuals, they can choose to marry a person of the opposite sex, and have a family the natural way (green, it doesn't take electrical or medical energy to produce the child), they are demanding to have an additional choice (rights) (the price, the families of both partners).

Look, I was not the one that started with morality or religion being at odds with homosexual actions/marriage, it was implied, and I pointed out that 'homosexual actions' are at odds with religion and morals. Religions are where marriage started. To exclude the religious aspect of this is like saying Algebra has nothing to do with mathmatics; it doesn't make any sense.

If you want to re-discuss all the other ways, go back through the posts and address specifics.

If the law is being changed "not to include gays", isn't that just a clear definition of a tradition that has been practiced for eons, that now some homosexuals are saying "marriage doesn't 'have' to be between a man and a woman" (isn't that like saying four doesn't 'have' to be two and two, we could call it two and three?

I have asked: what benefit (merit) does homosexual marriage bring to society? The answers that made the most sense were: fidelity (you don't have to be married for that), child adoption (you don't have to be married for that). Homosexual marriage is about legitimizing a sinful (if you don't like that substitute: unproductive, lewd, perverse, fraudulent, false, unhealthy, damaging) act. It does NOTHING to improve society, community or country (if it did, the gov would have already legalized it).

Happiness is not 'guarenteed' in the Constitution (only the pursuit). Homosexuals hapiness is not a good reason to legalize an act of fraud. It would be like saying children would be happy with ice cream for every meal, lets' make that a LAW (just as silly and just as immature, emotionally and spiritually).

I understand there are people that "want it". That does not make it right or legitimate.

 

[Father Time]

You are saying that 'being homosexual' is hard-wired. There is no proof that it is.

And I ask again, at what point did you choose to be attracted to women? YOU DO NOT GET TO MAKE THAT CHOICE. IT HAPPENS AUTOMATICALLY. You can try and bury your sexuality but it almost never works. Many gays have tried to be straight but you can’t simply turn off what you sexually desire

I have only brought up ONE argument with ONE question and you have yet to refute it at all. The problem is all of the gay hatters out there shift arguments all over the place until they end up here where you are with the ‘evil’ statement and religion – NETHER OF WITCH HAS ANY BARRING ON CIVIL MARRIAGES. I agree that you church should not have to marry gay couples but the state should never take away from a specific group or people.

And I have already informed you haw the legal definition is being CHANGED TO NOT INCLUDE GAYS more than changed to include them. It may not fit YOUR definition of marriage but I don’t really care how you define it. The ‘evil’ statement is where you finally show your true colors. There is NOTHING EVIL ABOUT GAYS. You cannot demonstrate a single fact that is inherently evil about being gay. That is your religion talking now and religion has no right defining the right of other citizens.

Where did I say anything about the 10 being evil? YOU ARE INJECTING THE CONCEPT OF YOUR MORALITY INTO THIS. Your morality does not define the law.

No it is not. I was just responding to the concept that there is NO good from gay marriages when in fact there are many advantages for the couple’s happiness as well as for society. That is just one that benefits both, though it would be better worded as stability rather than fidelity.

I totally understand what you are getting at here, though.. I just don't think that the religious aspect should be the sole consideration here.

I do not think that religion has any place in this issue. It is a state marriage that is in question as the sovernty of each church to perform the rituals must be maintained no matter what the state decides. It is a legitimate worry for the anti movement though as I stated earlier (I think that it was in this gay marriage thread but it might be in the other one going on right now).

Nothing is being taken away from homosexuals, they can choose to marry a person of the opposite sex, and have a family the natural way (green, it doesn't take electrical or medical energy to produce the child), they are demanding to have an additional choice (rights) (the price, the families of both partners).

Did you feel the same way about people demanding an end to interracial marraige bans
'both blacks and whites can't marry another race, this is extra rights'

Seriously in both cases they are demanding access to the same government offer other couples get. Why this is construed as an extra right I do not know.

Look, I was not the one that started with morality or religion being at odds with homosexual actions/marriage, it was implied, and I pointed out that 'homosexual actions' are at odds with religion and morals. Religions are where marriage started. To exclude the religious aspect of this is like saying Algebra has nothing to do with mathmatics; it doesn't make any sense.

I know you didn't bring it up but I fail to see the relevance, churches could refuse to marry a gay couple (just like they can refuse to marry a couple of different faiths or races).

If the law is being changed "not to include gays", isn't that just a clear definition of a tradition that has been practiced for eons, that now some homosexuals are saying "marriage doesn't 'have' to be between a man and a woman" (isn't that like saying four doesn't 'have' to be two and two, we could call it two and three?

I have asked: what benefit (merit) does homosexual marriage bring to society? The answers that made the most sense were: fidelity (you don't have to be married for that), child adoption (you don't have to be married for that). Homosexual marriage is about legitimizing a sinful (if you don't like that substitute: unproductive, lewd, perverse, fraudulent, false, unhealthy, damaging) act. It does NOTHING to improve society, community or country (if it did, the gov would have already legalized it).

You give the government WAY too much credit.

 

[JD_2B]

Whether there will be fidelity or not is not the issue here. Anyone can have sex with someone else before they get married.. I do not know how that either increases or decreases their chances of living together "til death do they part", but I know a lot of people who are allowed to get married, and be married are allowed to do this beforehand, and even technically allowed to cheat, based on the government's standards, in many states.
Marriage can be religious or it can simply be an enforceable contract between two consensual adults.

I totally understand what you are getting at here, though.. I just don't think that the religious aspect should be the sole consideration here. After all, I can shoot someone who I see trying to rape someone, and yet "Thou shalt not kill"..

We aren't supposed to commit adultery, and this includes (biblically) marrying and having sex with a divorced OR widowed woman. Yet this is allowed..

I can give you a legal exception to each and every one of those ten commandments...

And a little reminder- The slippery slope that ended up with us totally disregarding the ten, really started thousands of years ago. That does not condone anything religiously, but why would you be so overly concerned anyways? If you believe the bible, then you should also know that all the homosexuals and homosexuality will be destroyed, in the end times. Why waste your time trying to save people who can't be saved? God said it is a waste of your breath!

"Thou shall not murder" (otherwise we would all die because we all kill animals and plants to live.

Yet God sent a big giant flood, and killed off almost all of mankind, and everyone, and even encourages the stoning and killing of people who "sin"?
Guess what? There is clearly an exception to every rule.

Yeshua explained divorce as something man came up with, not G*d. It was "tolerated", not accepted. It is still a sin, but now sins can be forgiven (if you are divorced and 'repent', to become a different, better person, it is not the same person, re-marrying); if you do not repent and marry in the 'same state of sin', then you are committing 'sin'.

Challenge: Name that verse. I call this one bullshit.

Yeshua also told us to spread the "Good News" (the gospel), if we neglect to tell homosexuals of the forgiveness of sins and the 'hope' of redemption, we are sinning (in allowing them to continue to sin in ignorance). If we (Christians), do not stop the falsehoods (saying that the homosexual actions are not sins), then again, we can be held accountable for those sins.

And telling people that repentance for getting divorced somehow gives them a free pass to remarry is the same thing. In fact, it is worse, because it is false teachings. N'less you can name that verse..

I am 'trying' (I am not that good at it) to follow His teachings and to let others know, that Yeshua loves them, as they are, but has a better plan for them, if they only try to follow Him. Without Him, they will be as a blind man, stumbling on a steep path, with Him, the path will be made smoother, "they" have the choice.

Again, bullshit. The bible says that even the unrighteous (those who do not know God) can be redeemed. YOU are not God. YOU do not get to rewrite the bible, just to spread propaganda on gay hate.

I did not ask for a 'legal exception', I asked 'anyone' to point out evil in the 10 Commandments. If you cannot point out 'evil', it would stand to reason, the laws must be 'good'. Therefore a good and just Lord would not specify an act as 'evil' or 'wrong' if it was not against other people (and the Lord), unless it was.

Hmmm.. Well, God never called the Jews evil for accusing Jesus of breaking the sabbath.. or nailing him to the wood.
He never said that Adam and Eve's sin was "evil", so was that good too? You need to learn to read a little further into things, than just reading the storybook version of the bible. I mean no offense by that either. I can see that you really want to do the right thing, and I respect that. You just need to also realise that YOU doing the right thing and wanting (too much) others to do the right thing, too, can lead you astray..

What would jesus do? Do you really think Jesus would be sitting there preaching to homosexuals and begging them to become heterosexual again, and to repent, etc? No way!!

Besides, you are not bringing anyone closer to God, by telling homosexuals that they shouldn't be able to enter into a basic contract with each other, under state law.

 

[jeffrockit]

No one cares about a word, if marraige had no legal quirks about it they wouldn't care nearly as much.

Although it's really fucking funny that the person you're quoting claims marraige is just a word then complains that it's the gays who are devaluing it.

You have to love irony.

Not in the quote. Never states the marriage is "JUST" a word, It asks why...oh just read it as written. I don't feel like pasting it again for you to misread again.
The gays have been the ones stating that it is "just a word"

It's not the word that matters so much as the legal contract that comes with it. I said it before and I'll say it again, if they have the same features whether or not a homosexual union is called a marraige or a civil union is strictly aesthetic as far as I'm concerned.

Although from what I heard, legal-wise it would just be easier to call them a marraige then to make a whole new legal term.

How would that be easier as they would then have to change the definition to suit another group.
From freedictionary.com
Marriage is a legally sanctioned contract between a man and a woman. Entering into a marriage contract changes the legal status of both parties, giving husband and wife new rights and obligations. Public policy is strongly in favor of marriage based on the belief that it preserves the family unit. Traditionally, marriage has been viewed as vital to the preservation of morals and civilization.

BTW what right do they not have that I have...ie, I am free to marry who I want. of the opposite sex, if we both mutually agree. They are free to do the same as me. I am not, however free to marry someone of the same sex, nor are they. We both have the same set of rights.

 

[Father Time]

Not in the quote. Never states the marriage is "JUST" a word, It asks why...oh just read it as written. I don't feel like pasting it again for you to misread again.
The gays have been the ones stating that it is "just a word"

It's not the word that matters so much as the legal contract that comes with it. I said it before and I'll say it again, if they have the same features whether or not a homosexual union is called a marraige or a civil union is strictly aesthetic as far as I'm concerned.

Although from what I heard, legal-wise it would just be easier to call them a marraige then to make a whole new legal term.

How would that be easier as they would then have to change the definition to suit another group.
From freedictionary.com
Marriage is a legally sanctioned contract between a man and a woman. Entering into a marriage contract changes the legal status of both parties, giving husband and wife new rights and obligations. Public policy is strongly in favor of marriage based on the belief that it preserves the family unit. Traditionally, marriage has been viewed as vital to the preservation of morals and civilization.

BTW what right do they not have that I have...ie, I am free to marry who I want. of the opposite sex, if we both mutually agree. They are free to do the same as me. I am not, however free to marry someone of the same sex, nor are they. We both have the same set of rights.

Well you either change the definition of marraige or you change the laws that have marraige to include gay marraige (whatever it gets called).

When you get married the government gives you rights as a couple and those should be extended to gay couples.

 

[JD_2B]

Not in the quote. Never states the marriage is "JUST" a word, It asks why...oh just read it as written. I don't feel like pasting it again for you to misread again.
The gays have been the ones stating that it is "just a word"

It's not the word that matters so much as the legal contract that comes with it. I said it before and I'll say it again, if they have the same features whether or not a homosexual union is called a marraige or a civil union is strictly aesthetic as far as I'm concerned.

Although from what I heard, legal-wise it would just be easier to call them a marraige then to make a whole new legal term.

How would that be easier as they would then have to change the definition to suit another group.
From freedictionary.com
Marriage is a legally sanctioned contract between a man and a woman. Entering into a marriage contract changes the legal status of both parties, giving husband and wife new rights and obligations. Public policy is strongly in favor of marriage based on the belief that it preserves the family unit. Traditionally, marriage has been viewed as vital to the preservation of morals and civilization.

BTW what right do they not have that I have...ie, I am free to marry who I want. of the opposite sex, if we both mutually agree. They are free to do the same as me. I am not, however free to marry someone of the same sex, nor are they. We both have the same set of rights.

Blacks were treated the same way, some time back. The rationale was that they were allowed to marry.. only rather than it being a sexual orientation limitation, it was a limitation based on race.

Here's the issue with that- there is no "pure" race.. Most everyone has some kind of mixed race in them, from an ancestral level. So, the logic that blacks only legally married pure blacks is a myth, in and of itself.

Also, people can marry other people and then later realize that they are homosexual or bisexual whatever. Because of this- technically, a heterosexual person can be married to a homosexual person. In fact, both people could feasibly decide that they are both homosexual, and remain married, but the interests of that person would be wrapped up in another individual, not the person that they are contracted to love honor and cherish till death, etc.

Anyways, marriage is what it is.. a union between two adults. Even Jesus and God were married in a sense. Jesus was always referred to as the bridegroom, in relation to God (the father).. Honestly, the bible only says that homosexual SEX is immoral, it does not say anything about gays being married being immoral, and I think that the analogy of the father and jesus being a marital union is an excellent example of why this is okay.

 

[logical4u]

And I ask again, at what point did you choose to be attracted to women? YOU DO NOT GET TO MAKE THAT CHOICE. IT HAPPENS AUTOMATICALLY. You can try and bury your sexuality but it almost never works. Many gays have tried to be straight but you can’t simply turn off what you sexually desire

I have only brought up ONE argument with ONE question and you have yet to refute it at all. The problem is all of the gay hatters out there shift arguments all over the place until they end up here where you are with the ‘evil’ statement and religion – NETHER OF WITCH HAS ANY BARRING ON CIVIL MARRIAGES. I agree that you church should not have to marry gay couples but the state should never take away from a specific group or people.

And I have already informed you haw the legal definition is being CHANGED TO NOT INCLUDE GAYS more than changed to include them. It may not fit YOUR definition of marriage but I don’t really care how you define it. The ‘evil’ statement is where you finally show your true colors. There is NOTHING EVIL ABOUT GAYS. You cannot demonstrate a single fact that is inherently evil about being gay. That is your religion talking now and religion has no right defining the right of other citizens.

Where did I say anything about the 10 being evil? YOU ARE INJECTING THE CONCEPT OF YOUR MORALITY INTO THIS. Your morality does not define the law.

No it is not. I was just responding to the concept that there is NO good from gay marriages when in fact there are many advantages for the couple’s happiness as well as for society. That is just one that benefits both, though it would be better worded as stability rather than fidelity.

I do not think that religion has any place in this issue. It is a state marriage that is in question as the sovernty of each church to perform the rituals must be maintained no matter what the state decides. It is a legitimate worry for the anti movement though as I stated earlier (I think that it was in this gay marriage thread but it might be in the other one going on right now).

Nothing is being taken away from homosexuals, they can choose to marry a person of the opposite sex, and have a family the natural way (green, it doesn't take electrical or medical energy to produce the child), they are demanding to have an additional choice (rights) (the price, the families of both partners).

Did you feel the same way about people demanding an end to interracial marraige bans
'both blacks and whites can't marry another race, this is extra rights'

Seriously in both cases they are demanding access to the same government offer other couples get. Why this is construed as an extra right I do not know.

Look, I was not the one that started with morality or religion being at odds with homosexual actions/marriage, it was implied, and I pointed out that 'homosexual actions' are at odds with religion and morals. Religions are where marriage started. To exclude the religious aspect of this is like saying Algebra has nothing to do with mathmatics; it doesn't make any sense.

I know you didn't bring it up but I fail to see the relevance, churches could refuse to marry a gay couple (just like they can refuse to marry a couple of different faiths or races).

If the law is being changed "not to include gays", isn't that just a clear definition of a tradition that has been practiced for eons, that now some homosexuals are saying "marriage doesn't 'have' to be between a man and a woman" (isn't that like saying four doesn't 'have' to be two and two, we could call it two and three?

I have asked: what benefit (merit) does homosexual marriage bring to society? The answers that made the most sense were: fidelity (you don't have to be married for that), child adoption (you don't have to be married for that). Homosexual marriage is about legitimizing a sinful (if you don't like that substitute: unproductive, lewd, perverse, fraudulent, false, unhealthy, damaging) act. It does NOTHING to improve society, community or country (if it did, the gov would have already legalized it).

You give the government WAY too much credit.

Isn't this the same gov you want to control our energy economy and our health economy?

 

[Father Time]

Nothing is being taken away from homosexuals, they can choose to marry a person of the opposite sex, and have a family the natural way (green, it doesn't take electrical or medical energy to produce the child), they are demanding to have an additional choice (rights) (the price, the families of both partners).

Did you feel the same way about people demanding an end to interracial marraige bans
'both blacks and whites can't marry another race, this is extra rights'

Seriously in both cases they are demanding access to the same government offer other couples get. Why this is construed as an extra right I do not know.



I know you didn't bring it up but I fail to see the relevance, churches could refuse to marry a gay couple (just like they can refuse to marry a couple of different faiths or races).

If the law is being changed "not to include gays", isn't that just a clear definition of a tradition that has been practiced for eons, that now some homosexuals are saying "marriage doesn't 'have' to be between a man and a woman" (isn't that like saying four doesn't 'have' to be two and two, we could call it two and three?

I have asked: what benefit (merit) does homosexual marriage bring to society? The answers that made the most sense were: fidelity (you don't have to be married for that), child adoption (you don't have to be married for that). Homosexual marriage is about legitimizing a sinful (if you don't like that substitute: unproductive, lewd, perverse, fraudulent, false, unhealthy, damaging) act. It does NOTHING to improve society, community or country (if it did, the gov would have already legalized it).

You give the government WAY too much credit.

Isn't this the same gov you want to control our energy economy and our health economy?

I don't remember ever advocating those things.

 

[logical4u]

Whether there will be fidelity or not is not the issue here. Anyone can have sex with someone else before they get married.. I do not know how that either increases or decreases their chances of living together "til death do they part", but I know a lot of people who are allowed to get married, and be married are allowed to do this beforehand, and even technically allowed to cheat, based on the government's standards, in many states.
Marriage can be religious or it can simply be an enforceable contract between two consensual adults.

I totally understand what you are getting at here, though.. I just don't think that the religious aspect should be the sole consideration here. After all, I can shoot someone who I see trying to rape someone, and yet "Thou shalt not kill"..

We aren't supposed to commit adultery, and this includes (biblically) marrying and having sex with a divorced OR widowed woman. Yet this is allowed..

I can give you a legal exception to each and every one of those ten commandments...

And a little reminder- The slippery slope that ended up with us totally disregarding the ten, really started thousands of years ago. That does not condone anything religiously, but why would you be so overly concerned anyways? If you believe the bible, then you should also know that all the homosexuals and homosexuality will be destroyed, in the end times. Why waste your time trying to save people who can't be saved? God said it is a waste of your breath!

Yet God sent a big giant flood, and killed off almost all of mankind, and everyone, and even encourages the stoning and killing of people who "sin"?
Guess what? There is clearly an exception to every rule.




Challenge: Name that verse. I call this one bullshit.



And telling people that repentance for getting divorced somehow gives them a free pass to remarry is the same thing. In fact, it is worse, because it is false teachings. N'less you can name that verse..



Again, bullshit. The bible says that even the unrighteous (those who do not know God) can be redeemed. YOU are not God. YOU do not get to rewrite the bible, just to spread propaganda on gay hate.

I did not ask for a 'legal exception', I asked 'anyone' to point out evil in the 10 Commandments. If you cannot point out 'evil', it would stand to reason, the laws must be 'good'. Therefore a good and just Lord would not specify an act as 'evil' or 'wrong' if it was not against other people (and the Lord), unless it was.

Hmmm.. Well, God never called the Jews evil for accusing Jesus of breaking the sabbath.. or nailing him to the wood.
He never said that Adam and Eve's sin was "evil", so was that good too? You need to learn to read a little further into things, than just reading the storybook version of the bible. I mean no offense by that either. I can see that you really want to do the right thing, and I respect that. You just need to also realise that YOU doing the right thing and wanting (too much) others to do the right thing, too, can lead you astray..

What would jesus do? Do you really think Jesus would be sitting there preaching to homosexuals and begging them to become heterosexual again, and to repent, etc? No way!!

Besides, you are not bringing anyone closer to God, by telling homosexuals that they shouldn't be able to enter into a basic contract with each other, under state law.

I am not good with chapter and verse: it is the time the hebrew leaders tried to trap Yeshua by asking if a woman married a brother and he died and according to law, she married another brother and so on, who would she be married to in heaven....

You seem to only read enough to snap back, not understand. I said that if a person repented of their sin (and they were divorced) and became a better person that did not make the same mistakes, it would not be the same person remarrying. It would be an improved person (through Christ), that would be a lot less likely to sin the same way (make the same mistakes)

As for the 'unrighteous' being redeemed: how can that happen unless they seek redemption (repent)?
Where have I said I 'hate' homosexuals? Aren't you spreading 'propoganda' by implying that the Lord will accept homosexuals as 'not sinning' when it clearly states in several places that in the 'eyes of the Lord' it IS a sin?
No where have I claimed that I AM G*d or even a god. I am pointing out falsehoods about the Bible (that homosexuality is not a sin). Because you disagree with the Bible, does not make the Bible wrong. I would looooove to here your plan for society to 'all get along'. I would be very interested in hearing where you think people get their spirituality and ability to reason (some call that free will).

Yeshua begged His father to "forgive them for they know not what they do". I would "read into it" and say He was declaring that behavior sinful.
Adam and Eve were told that they 'displeased' G*d. The punishment was expulsion from The garden, working all their days for survival and painful childbirth (just guessing, maybe I am not "reading into enough", but that sounds 'sinful' to me). I believe sin and evil can be used interchangibly in the Bible.

WWJD? Please, have you read the gospels? He would have been in the worst places telling the 'sinners' about His love and the opportunity for ANYONE to come to Him for redemption. He would not see their sin and say ... oh well, maybe I should just let that slide.... He went to the people that were considered the worst of society and preached and taught them about G*d's love. He told them what awaited them if they chose to reject G*d. No where did He say: in eternity everyone is accepted just as they are. The Lord is JUST...everyone will be punished for their sins (like when you were a child and disobeyed your parents, you were punished, and most of the time, you earned the punishment), it will not stop His love. If you reject Him, you will not get to be in with Him (something that caused the rebellious angels to cry and gnash their teeth and show great distress).

There was no mention of a "basic contract", the subject is: HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE. Do not try 'it depends what is, is".

I do not have a story book outlook on the Bible, it is a book of spiritual growth, you can use it to mature spiritually (or not). I do not have a story book outlook on society; I do not believe you can legalize sinful behavior, and the outcome will be whole and pure. It will not. I do not believe that lying to people that are involved in destructive behaviour, will somehow, magically, make the outcome any different. People will be destroyed. That is not hatred. It is not fear. It is fact.

 

[logical4u]

It's not the word that matters so much as the legal contract that comes with it. I said it before and I'll say it again, if they have the same features whether or not a homosexual union is called a marraige or a civil union is strictly aesthetic as far as I'm concerned.

Although from what I heard, legal-wise it would just be easier to call them a marraige then to make a whole new legal term.

How would that be easier as they would then have to change the definition to suit another group.
From freedictionary.com
Marriage is a legally sanctioned contract between a man and a woman. Entering into a marriage contract changes the legal status of both parties, giving husband and wife new rights and obligations. Public policy is strongly in favor of marriage based on the belief that it preserves the family unit. Traditionally, marriage has been viewed as vital to the preservation of morals and civilization.

BTW what right do they not have that I have...ie, I am free to marry who I want. of the opposite sex, if we both mutually agree. They are free to do the same as me. I am not, however free to marry someone of the same sex, nor are they. We both have the same set of rights.

Blacks were treated the same way, some time back. The rationale was that they were allowed to marry.. only rather than it being a sexual orientation limitation, it was a limitation based on race.

Here's the issue with that- there is no "pure" race.. Most everyone has some kind of mixed race in them, from an ancestral level. So, the logic that blacks only legally married pure blacks is a myth, in and of itself.

Also, people can marry other people and then later realize that they are homosexual or bisexual whatever. Because of this- technically, a heterosexual person can be married to a homosexual person. In fact, both people could feasibly decide that they are both homosexual, and remain married, but the interests of that person would be wrapped up in another individual, not the person that they are contracted to love honor and cherish till death, etc.

Anyways, marriage is what it is.. a union between two adults. Even Jesus and God were married in a sense. Jesus was always referred to as the bridegroom, in relation to God (the father).. Honestly, the bible only says that homosexual SEX is immoral, it does not say anything about gays being married being immoral, and I think that the analogy of the father and jesus being a marital union is an excellent example of why this is okay.

Sorry, I don't think you understand. Yeshua honored His Father, G*d. "His" bride was and is the "church". The "church" is made of the people that love Him and want Him for their Savior. This analogy is only used to show the depth of love Yeshua has for people.
Please don't re-define marriage here. Marriage is not 'simply' a union between two adults. There are specifications to "qualifying" adults for marriage. Yeshua stated, that a man shall take a wife and the two shall become one. He did not say that a man shall take another man and the two shall become one.
And your other statement "Honestly, the bible only says that homosexual SEX is immoral, it does not say anything about gays being married being immoral" is totally illogical, are you implying if homosexuals are married, they will NOT engage in homosexual practices?

Just explain in a logical way how homosexual marriage can benefit society. Tell us how it can improve communities.

 

[froggy]

How would that be easier as they would then have to change the definition to suit another group.
From freedictionary.com
Marriage is a legally sanctioned contract between a man and a woman. Entering into a marriage contract changes the legal status of both parties, giving husband and wife new rights and obligations. Public policy is strongly in favor of marriage based on the belief that it preserves the family unit. Traditionally, marriage has been viewed as vital to the preservation of morals and civilization.

BTW what right do they not have that I haven.ie am free to marry who I want. of the opposite sex, if we both mutually agree. They are free to do the same as me. I am not, however free to marry someone of the same sex, nor are they. We both have the same set of rights.

Blacks were treated the same way, some time back. The rationale was that they were allowed to marry.. only rather than it being a sexual orientation limitation, it was a limitation based on race.

Here's the issue with that- there is no "pure" race.. Most everyone has some kind of mixed race in them, from an ancestral level. So, the logic that blacks only legally married pure blacks is a myth, in and of itself.

Also, people can marry other people and then later realize that they are homosexual or bisexual whatever. Because of this- technically, a heterosexual person can be married to a homosexual person. In fact, both people could feasibly decide that they are both homosexual, and remain married, but the interests of that person would be wrapped up in another individual, not the person that they are contracted to love honor and cherish till death, etc.

Anyways, marriage is what it is.. a union between two adults. Even Jesus and God were married in a sense. Jesus was always referred to as the bridegroom, in relation to God (the father).. Honestly, the bible only says that homosexual SEX is immoral, it does not say anything about gays being married being immoral, and I think that the analogy of the father and jesus being a marital union is an excellent example of why this is okay.

Sorry, I don't think you understand. Yeshua honored His Father, G*d. "His" bride was and is the "church". The "church" is made of the people that love Him and want Him for their Savior. This analogy is only used to show the depth of love Yeshua has for people.
Please don't re-define marriage here. Marriage is not 'simply' a union between two adults. There are specifications to "qualifying" adults for marriage. Yeshua stated, that a man shall take a wife and the two shall become one. He did not say that a man shall take another man and the two shall become one.
And your other statement "Honestly, the bible only says that homosexual SEX is immoral, it does not say anything about gays being married being immoral" is totally illogical, are you implying if homosexuals are married, they will NOT engage in homosexual practices?

Just explain in a logical way how homosexual marriage can benefit society. Tell us how it can improve communities.

It can't, look what it did to sodom and gomorrah.

 

[Father Time]

Blacks were treated the same way, some time back. The rationale was that they were allowed to marry.. only rather than it being a sexual orientation limitation, it was a limitation based on race.

Here's the issue with that- there is no "pure" race.. Most everyone has some kind of mixed race in them, from an ancestral level. So, the logic that blacks only legally married pure blacks is a myth, in and of itself.

Also, people can marry other people and then later realize that they are homosexual or bisexual whatever. Because of this- technically, a heterosexual person can be married to a homosexual person. In fact, both people could feasibly decide that they are both homosexual, and remain married, but the interests of that person would be wrapped up in another individual, not the person that they are contracted to love honor and cherish till death, etc.

Anyways, marriage is what it is.. a union between two adults. Even Jesus and God were married in a sense. Jesus was always referred to as the bridegroom, in relation to God (the father).. Honestly, the bible only says that homosexual SEX is immoral, it does not say anything about gays being married being immoral, and I think that the analogy of the father and jesus being a marital union is an excellent example of why this is okay.

Sorry, I don't think you understand. Yeshua honored His Father, G*d. "His" bride was and is the "church". The "church" is made of the people that love Him and want Him for their Savior. This analogy is only used to show the depth of love Yeshua has for people.
Please don't re-define marriage here. Marriage is not 'simply' a union between two adults. There are specifications to "qualifying" adults for marriage. Yeshua stated, that a man shall take a wife and the two shall become one. He did not say that a man shall take another man and the two shall become one.
And your other statement "Honestly, the bible only says that homosexual SEX is immoral, it does not say anything about gays being married being immoral" is totally illogical, are you implying if homosexuals are married, they will NOT engage in homosexual practices?

Just explain in a logical way how homosexual marriage can benefit society. Tell us how it can improve communities.

It can't, look what it did to sodom and gomorrah.

Look what it's doing to Europe and MA. ... oh wait those places haven't been destroyed by God. Never mind.

 

[logical4u]

sorry, i don't think you understand. Yeshua honored his father, g*d. "his" bride was and is the "church". The "church" is made of the people that love him and want him for their savior. This analogy is only used to show the depth of love yeshua has for people.
Please don't re-define marriage here. Marriage is not 'simply' a union between two adults. There are specifications to "qualifying" adults for marriage. Yeshua stated, that a man shall take a wife and the two shall become one. He did not say that a man shall take another man and the two shall become one.
And your other statement "honestly, the bible only says that homosexual sex is immoral, it does not say anything about gays being married being immoral" is totally illogical, are you implying if homosexuals are married, they will not engage in homosexual practices?

Just explain in a logical way how homosexual marriage can benefit society. Tell us how it can improve communities.

it can't, look what it did to sodom and gomorrah.

look what it's doing to europe and ma. ... Oh wait those places haven't been destroyed by god. Never mind.

yet!