The Quandary Christians Put Gays In

[Freewill]

Gay marriage was never denied because it never was no matter how the left howls.

Of course that changes now because of 5 old men and women.

I just wonder where the gays will go to be victims now that their status has changed.

I am thinking they will be victims of churches to which they can't force themselves upon.

One thing we can be sure of is that they will find a way to stay the victim.

Treat them as equals, they are, and all that goes away eh?

I basically agree. But why isn't a civil contract enough.

You first.

The Bible is mute on civil marriage.

You should do the same.

My point stands unrefuted.

Civil marriage is none of religion's business.

Marriage is Gods plan. Civil marriage is Caesar's plan. Render unto God the things that are Gods And unto Ceasar the things that are Caesars. Thus the controversy goes away. You could not stand that!

Why are so-called Christians pretending that the scriptures forbid same sex marriage?

I am not a so called Christian. I am a Catholic. So you will not hear me quoting scripture. I quote tradition, common sense and the natural law. All of those indicate that same sex marriage is like marrying a dead person. No procreation is possible. Lots of fun. Benefits for sure. But no creation.

It is only equal because they say it is equal. Like saying a pilot and a car driver are the same thing.

 

[Freewill]

Gay marriage was never denied because it never was no matter how the left howls.

Of course that changes now because of 5 old men and women.

I just wonder where the gays will go to be victims now that their status has changed.

I am thinking they will be victims of churches to which they can't force themselves upon.

One thing we can be sure of is that they will find a way to stay the victim.

What makes you think they have to go anywhere? Blacks and women were given equal rights a long time ago, and it hasn't stopped THEM from claiming perpetual, caterwauling victimhood.

The difference in my opinion and why comparing blacks to being gay is wrong.

Blacks can't keep their color to themselves. Its out there for all to see. Not so with the gays, there is nothing that says they have to announce their pride in poking their friends where the Sun doesn't shine. Doing so, in my opinion, is there business but nothing to be proud of.

 

[occupied]

Gay marriage was never denied because it never was no matter how the left howls.

Of course that changes now because of 5 old men and women.

I just wonder where the gays will go to be victims now that their status has changed.

I am thinking they will be victims of churches to which they can't force themselves upon.

One thing we can be sure of is that they will find a way to stay the victim.

Treat them as equals, they are, and all that goes away eh?

I basically agree. But why isn't a civil contract enough.

You first.

The Bible is mute on civil marriage.

You should do the same.

My point stands unrefuted.

Civil marriage is none of religion's business.

Marriage is Gods plan. Civil marriage is Caesar's plan. Render unto God the things that are Gods And unto Ceasar the things that are Caesars. Thus the controversy goes away. You could not stand that!

Why are so-called Christians pretending that the scriptures forbid same sex marriage?

I am not a so called Christian. I am a Catholic. So you will not hear me quoting scripture. I quote tradition, common sense and the natural law. All of those indicate that same sex marriage is like marrying a dead person. No procreation is possible. Lots of fun. Benefits for sure. But no creation.

If anything ruined "traditional marriage" it was women being granted the rights of an actual person. I doubt anyone would would now say it was a bad idea to let women rise above their traditional role of household slaves and baby machines but when it happened there were plenty just like you who freaked out but we survived and we are better off for it. The same thing applies to a further redefinition of what marriage is.

 

[Freewill]

Gay marriage was never denied because it never was no matter how the left howls.

Of course that changes now because of 5 old men and women.

I just wonder where the gays will go to be victims now that their status has changed.

I am thinking they will be victims of churches to which they can't force themselves upon.

One thing we can be sure of is that they will find a way to stay the victim.

LOL....the ones I see playing the victim card right now are the members of the far right who just cannot accept people of the same gender marrying.

The couples who sued for the right to marry- they just wanted to be able to get married.

Just like my wife and I are married- and now they can.

You want to pretend that makes them 'victims'- sounds like the only claiming the victim card is yourself.

If only that is all they wanted.

 

[Syriusly]

Gay marriage was never denied because it never was no matter how the left howls.

Of course that changes now because of 5 old men and women.

I just wonder where the gays will go to be victims now that their status has changed.

I am thinking they will be victims of churches to which they can't force themselves upon.

One thing we can be sure of is that they will find a way to stay the victim.

LOL....the ones I see playing the victim card right now are the members of the far right who just cannot accept people of the same gender marrying.

The couples who sued for the right to marry- they just wanted to be able to get married.

Just like my wife and I are married- and now they can.

You want to pretend that makes them 'victims'- sounds like the only claiming the victim card is yourself.

If only that is all they wanted.

If only that is all you want.

 

[Syriusly]

Gay marriage was never denied because it never was no matter how the left howls.

Of course that changes now because of 5 old men and women.

I just wonder where the gays will go to be victims now that their status has changed.

I am thinking they will be victims of churches to which they can't force themselves upon.

One thing we can be sure of is that they will find a way to stay the victim.

What makes you think they have to go anywhere? Blacks and women were given equal rights a long time ago, and it hasn't stopped THEM from claiming perpetual, caterwauling victimhood.

The difference in my opinion and why comparing blacks to being gay is wrong.

Blacks can't keep their color to themselves. Its out there for all to see. Not so with the gays, there is nothing that says they have to announce their pride in poking their friends where the Sun doesn't shine. Doing so, in my opinion, is there business but nothing to be proud of.

The difference in my opinion on why your opinion is wrong is because you are obsessing about how others have sex.

Homosexuals were not targeted for arrest or for being fired or for being beaten up or murdered because of their 'pride in having sex'- they were targeted because they were different- and because they were attracted to the 'wrong gender'

Targeting people for abuse, in my opinion, is nothing to be proud about.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Yes Christ walked among sinners......didnt join them in their sin though........

 

[Syriusly]

Gay marriage was never denied because it never was no matter how the left howls.

Of course that changes now because of 5 old men and women.

I just wonder where the gays will go to be victims now that their status has changed.

I am thinking they will be victims of churches to which they can't force themselves upon.

One thing we can be sure of is that they will find a way to stay the victim.

Treat them as equals, they are, and all that goes away eh?

I basically agree. But why isn't a civil contract enough.

You first.

The Bible is mute on civil marriage.

You should do the same.

My point stands unrefuted.

Civil marriage is none of religion's business.

Marriage is Gods plan. Civil marriage is Caesar's plan. Render unto God the things that are Gods And unto Ceasar the things that are Caesars. Thus the controversy goes away. You could not stand that!

Why are so-called Christians pretending that the scriptures forbid same sex marriage?

I am not a so called Christian. I am a Catholic. So you will not hear me quoting scripture. I quote tradition, common sense and the natural law. All of those indicate that same sex marriage is like marrying a dead person. No procreation is possible. Lots of fun. Benefits for sure. But no creation.

My 80 year old Uncle got married last year to a lovely lady in her 70's.

By your standards- that is the same as marrying a dead person. Lots of fun, benefits for sure- but no creation.

 

[Syriusly]

Gay marriage was never denied because it never was no matter how the left howls.

Of course that changes now because of 5 old men and women.

I just wonder where the gays will go to be victims now that their status has changed.

I am thinking they will be victims of churches to which they can't force themselves upon.

One thing we can be sure of is that they will find a way to stay the victim.

LOL....the ones I see playing the victim card right now are the members of the far right who just cannot accept people of the same gender marrying.

The couples who sued for the right to marry- they just wanted to be able to get married.

Just like my wife and I are married- and now they can.

You want to pretend that makes them 'victims'- sounds like the only claiming the victim card is yourself.

Then why is there so much angst when pointed out that there are others wishing to attain the same rights?

Seems odd that pointing out that the arguments used for one alternative lifestyle seem to work for all, created such displeasure

No angst.

I have seen only one type of person starting threads about 'others wishing to attain the same rights'- and those are started by people who are essentially against not only 'gay marriage' but those 'others' being married also.

Those threads are all strawmen by people who really can't stand homosexuals marrying.

My reply- and most of those who have replied have replied honestly that the Supreme Court's decision on Friday is as unrelated to incestuous marriage as Loving v. Virginia is.

People who actually want polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage have the same avenue of recourse gay couples have- the legislature or the courts- and they are welcome to try others.

As I point out- their cases are different and the State may have a compelling argument against those marriages- but they are welcome to make the argument.

 

[deltex1]

Gay marriage was never denied because it never was no matter how the left howls.

Of course that changes now because of 5 old men and women.

I just wonder where the gays will go to be victims now that their status has changed.

I am thinking they will be victims of churches to which they can't force themselves upon.

One thing we can be sure of is that they will find a way to stay the victim.

Treat them as equals, they are, and all that goes away eh?

I basically agree. But why isn't a civil contract enough.

You first.

You should do the same.

My point stands unrefuted.

Civil marriage is none of religion's business.

Marriage is Gods plan. Civil marriage is Caesar's plan. Render unto God the things that are Gods And unto Ceasar the things that are Caesars. Thus the controversy goes away. You could not stand that!

Why are so-called Christians pretending that the scriptures forbid same sex marriage?

I am not a so called Christian. I am a Catholic. So you will not hear me quoting scripture. I quote tradition, common sense and the natural law. All of those indicate that same sex marriage is like marrying a dead person. No procreation is possible. Lots of fun. Benefits for sure. But no creation.

My 80 year old Uncle got married last year to a lovely lady in her 70's.

By your standards- that is the same as marrying a dead person. Lots of fun, benefits for sure- but no creation.

I'm sure the lovely lady would agree. My wife does...lmbbffao!

 

[Seawytch]

I basically agree. But why isn't a civil contract enough.

You first.

So here I am, a Christian, telling my fellow Christians that the solution may be to start talking TO homosexuals instead of about them; to forge friendships like I have and gain a new perspective and try to see the world through their eyes.
I have and I got no regrets about it.

Here's the problem gays put Christians in: Individual Christans cannot petition to redact the Bible to current trends and fads. In fact, the reason the Bible exists is to remind Christians how current trends and fads of their relative time frame can drag them down to the pit instead of entering the gates of Heaven.

You might want to visit this thread. BTW "Saint", I knew I had you pegged.

Christians are supposed to extend compassion to homosexuals. But their theft of marriage is forbidden. Whatever they do is whatever they do. But they cannot tell the rest of the world that it must like it and revere it as a commonly-held social value. That's where the Bible draws a very clear and distinct line.

Attention Episcopalians Christian Sects of All Denominations Worldwide. Pay Heed. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The Bible is mute on civil marriage.

You should do the same.

My point stands unrefuted.

Civil marriage is none of religion's business.

Marriage is Gods plan. Civil marriage is Caesar's plan. Render unto God the things that are Gods And unto Ceasar the things that are Caesars. Thus the controversy goes away. You could not stand that!

We could "stand that" just at fine...if ya'll straight folks could. Civil unions for ALL is great.

 

[Pop23]

Gay marriage was never denied because it never was no matter how the left howls.

Of course that changes now because of 5 old men and women.

I just wonder where the gays will go to be victims now that their status has changed.

I am thinking they will be victims of churches to which they can't force themselves upon.

One thing we can be sure of is that they will find a way to stay the victim.

LOL....the ones I see playing the victim card right now are the members of the far right who just cannot accept people of the same gender marrying.

The couples who sued for the right to marry- they just wanted to be able to get married.

Just like my wife and I are married- and now they can.

You want to pretend that makes them 'victims'- sounds like the only claiming the victim card is yourself.

Then why is there so much angst when pointed out that there are others wishing to attain the same rights?

Seems odd that pointing out that the arguments used for one alternative lifestyle seem to work for all, created such displeasure

No angst.

I have seen only one type of person starting threads about 'others wishing to attain the same rights'- and those are started by people who are essentially against not only 'gay marriage' but those 'others' being married also.

Those threads are all strawmen by people who really can't stand homosexuals marrying.

My reply- and most of those who have replied have replied honestly that the Supreme Court's decision on Friday is as unrelated to incestuous marriage as Loving v. Virginia is.

People who actually want polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage have the same avenue of recourse gay couples have- the legislature or the courts- and they are welcome to try others.

As I point out- their cases are different and the State may have a compelling argument against those marriages- but they are welcome to make the argument.

You simply can't make the claims.

The arguments for polygamy and many relationships that were traditionally taboo, are the same as for SSM. I know it's disheartening, but I have yet heard different.

 

[deltex1]

I basically agree. But why isn't a civil contract enough.

You first.

Here's the problem gays put Christians in: Individual Christans cannot petition to redact the Bible to current trends and fads. In fact, the reason the Bible exists is to remind Christians how current trends and fads of their relative time frame can drag them down to the pit instead of entering the gates of Heaven.

You might want to visit this thread. BTW "Saint", I knew I had you pegged.

Christians are supposed to extend compassion to homosexuals. But their theft of marriage is forbidden. Whatever they do is whatever they do. But they cannot tell the rest of the world that it must like it and revere it as a commonly-held social value. That's where the Bible draws a very clear and distinct line.

Attention Episcopalians Christian Sects of All Denominations Worldwide. Pay Heed. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The Bible is mute on civil marriage.

You should do the same.

My point stands unrefuted.

Civil marriage is none of religion's business.

Marriage is Gods plan. Civil marriage is Caesar's plan. Render unto God the things that are Gods And unto Ceasar the things that are Caesars. Thus the controversy goes away. You could not stand that!

We could "stand that" just at fine...if ya'll straight folks could. Civil unions for ALL is great.

We already have it. Caesar gives us a marriage liscence...you stop there...we go to church and the priest does the ceremony...

 

[Pop23]

I basically agree. But why isn't a civil contract enough.

You first.

Here's the problem gays put Christians in: Individual Christans cannot petition to redact the Bible to current trends and fads. In fact, the reason the Bible exists is to remind Christians how current trends and fads of their relative time frame can drag them down to the pit instead of entering the gates of Heaven.

You might want to visit this thread. BTW "Saint", I knew I had you pegged.

Christians are supposed to extend compassion to homosexuals. But their theft of marriage is forbidden. Whatever they do is whatever they do. But they cannot tell the rest of the world that it must like it and revere it as a commonly-held social value. That's where the Bible draws a very clear and distinct line.

Attention Episcopalians Christian Sects of All Denominations Worldwide. Pay Heed. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The Bible is mute on civil marriage.

You should do the same.

My point stands unrefuted.

Civil marriage is none of religion's business.

Marriage is Gods plan. Civil marriage is Caesar's plan. Render unto God the things that are Gods And unto Ceasar the things that are Caesars. Thus the controversy goes away. You could not stand that!

We could "stand that" just at fine...if ya'll straight folks could. Civil unions for ALL is great.

Unless you have an institution that included 1 man and 1 woman, the polygamist and the same sex siblings must be included.

All your SSM arguments would fit just as well for them.

 

[Syriusly]

Gay marriage was never denied because it never was no matter how the left howls.

Of course that changes now because of 5 old men and women.

I just wonder where the gays will go to be victims now that their status has changed.

I am thinking they will be victims of churches to which they can't force themselves upon.

One thing we can be sure of is that they will find a way to stay the victim.

LOL....the ones I see playing the victim card right now are the members of the far right who just cannot accept people of the same gender marrying.

The couples who sued for the right to marry- they just wanted to be able to get married.

Just like my wife and I are married- and now they can.

You want to pretend that makes them 'victims'- sounds like the only claiming the victim card is yourself.

Then why is there so much angst when pointed out that there are others wishing to attain the same rights?

Seems odd that pointing out that the arguments used for one alternative lifestyle seem to work for all, created such displeasure

No angst.

I have seen only one type of person starting threads about 'others wishing to attain the same rights'- and those are started by people who are essentially against not only 'gay marriage' but those 'others' being married also.

Those threads are all strawmen by people who really can't stand homosexuals marrying.

My reply- and most of those who have replied have replied honestly that the Supreme Court's decision on Friday is as unrelated to incestuous marriage as Loving v. Virginia is.

People who actually want polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage have the same avenue of recourse gay couples have- the legislature or the courts- and they are welcome to try others.

As I point out- their cases are different and the State may have a compelling argument against those marriages- but they are welcome to make the argument.

You simply can't make the claims.

The arguments for polygamy and many relationships that were traditionally taboo, are the same as for SSM. I know it's disheartening, but I have yet heard different.

Then you simply are refusing to listen.

We have had this discussion- and I will say it to you again- if you do not have an argument on why polygamous marriages are wrong- then you didn't have an argument before Friday's ruling either.

If you do have an argument- then you have an argument.

But if your only argument is " I think its icky" or "Its Tradition!"- then yes- you have no legal argument- but that has been the case since Loving v. Virginia.

 

[Syriusly]

I basically agree. But why isn't a civil contract enough.

You first.

The Bible is mute on civil marriage.

You should do the same.

My point stands unrefuted.

Civil marriage is none of religion's business.

Marriage is Gods plan. Civil marriage is Caesar's plan. Render unto God the things that are Gods And unto Ceasar the things that are Caesars. Thus the controversy goes away. You could not stand that!

We could "stand that" just at fine...if ya'll straight folks could. Civil unions for ALL is great.

Unless you have an institution that included 1 man and 1 woman, the polygamist and the same sex siblings must be included.

All your SSM arguments would fit just as well for them.

That is what you keep telling everyone.

That claim is as false now as it was before.

 

[Seawytch]

I basically agree. But why isn't a civil contract enough.

You first.

The Bible is mute on civil marriage.

You should do the same.

My point stands unrefuted.

Civil marriage is none of religion's business.

Marriage is Gods plan. Civil marriage is Caesar's plan. Render unto God the things that are Gods And unto Ceasar the things that are Caesars. Thus the controversy goes away. You could not stand that!

We could "stand that" just at fine...if ya'll straight folks could. Civil unions for ALL is great.

We already have it. Caesar gives us a marriage liscence...you stop there...we go to church and the priest does the ceremony...

So relax, it's done. There is already a distinct difference between civil and religious marriage. Gays and straights can get civilly and/or religiously married.

 

[deltex1]

I basically agree. But why isn't a civil contract enough.

You first.

You should do the same.

My point stands unrefuted.

Civil marriage is none of religion's business.

Marriage is Gods plan. Civil marriage is Caesar's plan. Render unto God the things that are Gods And unto Ceasar the things that are Caesars. Thus the controversy goes away. You could not stand that!

We could "stand that" just at fine...if ya'll straight folks could. Civil unions for ALL is great.

We already have it. Caesar gives us a marriage liscence...you stop there...we go to church and the priest does the ceremony...

So relax, it's done. There is already a distinct difference between civil and religious marriage. Gays and straights can get civilly and/or religiously married.

You are correct...because some morons changed the definition.

 

[Seawytch]

You first.

My point stands unrefuted.

Civil marriage is none of religion's business.

Marriage is Gods plan. Civil marriage is Caesar's plan. Render unto God the things that are Gods And unto Ceasar the things that are Caesars. Thus the controversy goes away. You could not stand that!

We could "stand that" just at fine...if ya'll straight folks could. Civil unions for ALL is great.

We already have it. Caesar gives us a marriage liscence...you stop there...we go to church and the priest does the ceremony...

So relax, it's done. There is already a distinct difference between civil and religious marriage. Gays and straights can get civilly and/or religiously married.

You are correct...because some morons changed the definition.

A long freaking time ago. Eighteen hundred something. If white dudes hadn't been so greedy...

 

[deltex1]

You been reading black history again?