Homosexual Birth Myths

[OCA]

Originally posted by mattskramer
Name calling ignored. Nice links but they still don't answer a specific question. Yes or No: Is it legal for 2 men living in Maryland to become married to each other in Maryland? The answer to that SPECIFIC question is yes.

I am not RUNNING. Unlike you, I have a busy life outside of this chat room (and even outside the Internet). I don't have time to sit around with a childish chip on my shoulder keeping up with who said what and who dares dispute me. Get a life.

Matts are you stupid or blind? Did you read the links? Under current Maryland state law homosexual marriages are not legally recognized. Furthermore the state constitution recognizes that marriage is between a man and woman ONLY. I live here are you telling me i'm wrong? No homosexuals are currently legally married or are being married by state recognized individuals licensed to perform marriages in the state of Maryland, take that to the bank. And yeah the name calling is appropriate when it is 100% accurate.

What is wrong with you? You deny something that is spelled out in plain English in a link. Do we have a problem with reality?

 

[KLSuddeth]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Maybe to this priest, being married with kids seemed unnatural. This article proves nothing. I hate to rain on y'all's gay hate parade.

 

[mattskramer]

Originally posted by OCA
Matts are you stupid or blind? Did you read the links? Under current Maryland state law homosexual marriages are not legally recognized. Furthermore the state constitution recognizes that marriage is between a man and woman ONLY. I live here are you telling me i'm wrong? No homosexuals are currently legally married or are being married by state recognized individuals licensed to perform marriages in the state of Maryland, take that to the bank. And yeah the name calling is appropriate when it is 100% accurate.

What is wrong with you? You deny something that is spelled out in plain English in a link. Do we have a problem with reality?

Okay. Perhaps it is technically illegal for Homosexual men to get married in Maryland. The bottom line is that there in so sound logical reason to deny gays the right to marry each other. People here toss around irrelevant, if not erroneous statements and parade them as reasons. They have all been shot down. In summary: The Bible opposes it but there are Atheists. It is not normal and it is not natural but many behaviors fall into this category that need not be outlawed. Homosexuals can't have children of their own but surrogates and sperm banks are available. Children might be better off with a mother and a father, but they would do better if in almost any loving family than in an orphanage. Statistics say this and that, but statistics don't take the variable of marriage into account. The bottom line is that there is no logical reason why homosexual marriage should not be allowed.

Oh yes. Since I don't want to continue to debate whether or not it is legal to get married in Maryland, I forfeit. You win. Here is your trophy. Display it with pride. Yadda yadda. Go on and gloat.

 

[007]

It's like this matts, and you know this already, "marriage" is meant to be a union in the eyes of God in Holy Matrimony. God does not condone homosexuality, and will surely condem all queers to hell when the time comes, as the Bible says he will.

Now, "THERE IS NO LOGICAL REASON WHY QUEERS SHOULD BE MARRIED WHEN THEY CAN HAVE THE SAME LEGAL RIGHTS AS MARRIAD COUPLES WITH A CIVIL UNION".

It's not the normal heterosexual crowd that's trying to screw with nature here. It's the perverted queers. Marriage has got absolutely NOTHING to do with queers, and should stay that way.

Why don't they think up something brand new to call their unholy union instead of marriage?

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by Pale Rider
It's like this matts, and you know this already, "marriage" is meant to be a union in the eyes of God in Holy Matrimony. God does not condone homosexuality, and will surely condem all queers to hell when the time comes, as the Bible says he will.

Now, "THERE IS NO LOGICAL REASON WHY QUEERS SHOULD BE MARRIED WHEN THEY CAN HAVE THE SAME LEGAL RIGHTS AS MARRIAD COUPLES WITH A CIVIL UNION".

It's not the normal heterosexual crowd that's trying to screw with nature here. It's the perverted queers. Marriage has got absolutely NOTHING to do with queers, and should stay that way.

Why don't they think up something brand new to call their unholy union instead of marriage?

They have the same legal rights without civil unions. they can marry someone of the opposite sex and get the same benefits regardless of who they are. Neither civil unions or "gay marriage" will give them the same rights as a man and a woman joined together. As much as gays and lesbians want to protest they cant make the state give them the power to create life together. its just not possible.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Pale Rider
Now, "THERE IS NO LOGICAL REASON WHY QUEERS SHOULD BE MARRIED WHEN THEY CAN HAVE THE SAME LEGAL RIGHTS AS MARRIAD COUPLES WITH A CIVIL UNION".

except they still wouldn't be 'married', and that doesn't give them the same rights as heterosexuals.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
They have the same legal rights without civil unions. they can marry someone of the opposite sex and get the same benefits regardless of who they are. Neither civil unions or "gay marriage" will give them the same rights as a man and a woman joined together. As much as gays and lesbians want to protest they cant make the state give them the power to create life together. its just not possible.

so marriage is reduced to a state of procreation alone?

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by mattskramer
Okay. Perhaps it is technically illegal for Homosexual men to get married in Maryland. The bottom line is that there in so sound logical reason to deny gays the right to marry each other. People here toss around irrelevant, if not erroneous statements and parade them as reasons. They have all been shot down. In summary: The Bible opposes it but there are Atheists. It is not normal and it is not natural but many behaviors fall into this category that need not be outlawed. Homosexuals can't have children of their own but surrogates and sperm banks are available. Children might be better off with a mother and a father, but they would do better if in almost any loving family than in an orphanage. Statistics say this and that, but statistics don't take the variable of marriage into account. The bottom line is that there is no logical reason why homosexual marriage should not be allowed.

Oh yes. Since I don't want to continue to debate whether or not it is legal to get married in Maryland, I forfeit. You win. Here is your trophy. Display it with pride. Yadda yadda. Go on and gloat.

Technically illegal??????? What is technical about it? Two people of the same sex in the state of Maryland may not be joined in any kind of matrimony. Now if we could get a DOMA passed that would be even better. Matts 1 suggestion, take your liberalism which you try to pass off as libertarian individualism and move on down the road, will ya?

Again with the no logical reason, *sigh* i'm beginning to think that you are posting from a mental ward somewhere.

 

[007]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
except they still wouldn't be 'married', and that doesn't give them the same rights as heterosexuals.

And therein lies the problem. Homosexuals wanting to get "married", when "marriage" is between a man and a woman.

Why do they insist on dragging the holy union of man and woman into their perverted world? Is it that they're just not going to be happy unless marriage has been smeared and disgraced?

Since they all believe they're ground breaking pioneers, why in the hell don't they think up a NEW name, just for them, and leave marriage to remain what it has always meant?

 

[mattskramer]

Originally posted by OCA
Heterosexual or homosexual an abuser doesn't change his or her ways because of a marriage certificate, that is absolutely fucking ridiculous and really just wishful thinking.

"In addition to missing out on many of the benefits of marriage, cohabitors may face more serious difficulties. Annual rates of depression among cohabiting couples are more than three times what they are among married couples. And women in cohabiting relationships are more likely than married women to suffer physical and sexual abuse. Some research has shown that aggression is at least twice as common among cohabitors as it is among married partners. Two studies, one in Canada and the other in the United States, found that women in cohabiting relationships are about nine times more likely to be killed by their partner than are women in marital relationships."

http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/Print/PrintSWLT.htm

Give up your self-professed (and self-obsessed) erroneous title of "Undisputed USMB debate and trash talking champ since Saturday April 17". It is laughable. Enough said.

 

[007]

Originally posted by mattskramer

"I believe that every individual is naturally entitled to do as he pleases with himself and the fruits of his labor, so far as it in no way interferes with any other mens rights." - Abraham Lincoln

Too bad Lincoln had no idea what kind of sess pool the liberals would be trying to push the country into using that very thought as the reason.

Things have changed...

 

[mattskramer]

Originally posted by Pale Rider
Too bad Lincoln had no idea what kind of sess pool the liberals would be trying to push the country into using that very thought as the reason.

Things have changed...

Yes. Things have changed. Among them, women are allowed to vote and there is no more slavery in America. What a mess.

 

[007]

Originally posted by mattskramer
Yes. Things have changed. Among them, women are allowed to vote and there is no more slavery in America. What a mess.

Women "should" have been allowed to vote. Slavery "should" have been abolished.

Queers "should NOT" be allowed to marry. It won't even make the list of other "good" changes.

 

[mattskramer]

Originally posted by Pale Rider
Women "should" have been allowed to vote. Slavery "should" have been abolished.

Queers "should NOT" be allowed to marry. It won't even make the list of other "good" changes.

Years ago people thought that the sun revolved around the earth. It was even a punishable offense to claim otherwise. People thought that the earth was flat and that you could fall off the earth if you ventured out to sea too far. People who attempted to sail far were consider to be crazy by many people. It was understood that women don't vote. Not long ago it was also understood that you don't marry "outside your own kind". Interracial marriage was a no-no. Interfaith marriages were also practically unacceptable. I think that centuries, if not decades, from now people will read about these years and think that it was so narrow-minded, silly, and foolish for people to think that gay marriage should have been prohibited. They will be thought of as the "flat earth" people are thought of today. In the future, they will be though of as the pro-slavery people are though of today.

 

[007]

Originally posted by mattskramer
Years ago people thought that the sun revolved around the earth. It was even a punishable offense to claim otherwise. People thought that the earth was flat and that you could fall off the earth if you ventured out to sea too far. People who attempted to sail far were consider to be crazy by many people. It was understood that women don't vote. Not long ago it was also understood that you don't marry "outside your own kind". Interracial marriage was a no-no. Interfaith marriages were also practically unacceptable. I think that centuries, if not decades, from now people will read about these years and think that it was so narrow-minded, silly, and foolish for people to think that gay marriage should have been prohibited. They will be thought of as the "flat earth" people are thought of today. In the future, they will be though of as the pro-slavery people are though of today.

I think you're wrong. There's plenty of examples of things that "DON'T" change also. Like we're not going to start calling day, night. Or we're not going to start calling a car a train. You and I can go on and on with "examples". But that won't change the fact that men don't marry men, and women don't marry women. Marriage already is what it is. It doesn't need to be desicrated by the perverted queer life style.

Ask yourself this, "will anyone in the future look back at what is happening today, and call it *the good old days*"?

I think they're past long ago. Back when people knew right from wrong, and loved and respected the Lord and his message.

 

[007]

Originally posted by Pale Rider
It's like this matts, and you know this already, "marriage" is meant to be a union in the eyes of God in Holy Matrimony. God does not condone homosexuality, and will surely condem all queers to hell when the time comes, as the Bible says he will.

Now, "THERE IS NO LOGICAL REASON WHY QUEERS SHOULD BE MARRIED WHEN THEY CAN HAVE THE SAME LEGAL RIGHTS AS MARRIAD COUPLES WITH A CIVIL UNION".

It's not the normal heterosexual crowd that's trying to screw with nature here. It's the perverted queers. Marriage has got absolutely NOTHING to do with queers, and should stay that way.

Why don't they think up something brand new to call their unholy union instead of marriage?

Answer that.

 

[mattskramer]

It's like this matts, and you know this already, "marriage" is meant to be a union in the eyes of God in Holy Matrimony. God does not condone homosexuality, and will surely condem all queers to hell when the time comes, as the Bible says he will.

Wow. This was already explained on or around the first 2 weeks of my joining this board. There are such things as American Atheists. Many Americans do not believe that God exists. Assuming that God exists, how do we know that does not condone homosexuality? Is it explained in something we call the Bible? I guess that you assume the Bible to be true. Some people think that the Bible is fiction. Finally, assuming that God exists and that the Bible is true, perhaps some people choose to go to hell. I prefer to leave that decision in God's hands.

Another point: If the part of the Bible concerning homosexuality is true, isn't it fair to consider the entire Bible as true. If we are to apply God's wishes as law in the USA, then it is only right to apply ALL of God's wishes as law. What other advice are we forgetting? I think that there are many things that God wants and that God does not want, but I don't have time to go over every Godly like or dislike in the New Testament and list them and explain how we can go about making laws out of them.

Now, "THERE IS NO LOGICAL REASON WHY QUEERS SHOULD BE MARRIED WHEN THEY CAN HAVE THE SAME LEGAL RIGHTS AS MARRIAD COUPLES WITH A CIVIL UNION. It's not the normal heterosexual crowd that's trying to screw with nature here. It's the perverted queers. Marriage has got absolutely NOTHING to do with queers, and should stay that way. Why don't they think up something brand new to call their unholy union instead of marriage?



Okay. Do you believe that societal things can be "separate but equal"? Perhaps we should go back to having separate drinking fountains for Blacks and Whites, and separate restaurant dining areas, and even separate public restrooms. No. As it applies to societal conventions, things categorized separately are not equal. A "civil union" does not have the same connotation as "marriage" and it will not be treated the same.

 

[007]

Originally posted by mattskramer
It's like this matts, and you know this already, "marriage" is meant to be a union in the eyes of God in Holy Matrimony. God does not condone homosexuality, and will surely condem all queers to hell when the time comes, as the Bible says he will.

Wow. This was already explained on or around the first 2 weeks of my joining this board. There are such things as American Atheists. Many Americans do not believe that God exists. Assuming that God exists, how do we know that does not condone homosexuality? Is it explained in something we call the Bible? I guess that you assume the Bible to be true. Some people think that the Bible is fiction. Finally, assuming that God exists and that the Bible is true, perhaps some people choose to go to hell. I prefer to leave that decision in God's hands.

Another point: If the part of the Bible concerning homosexuality is true, isn't it fair to consider the entire Bible as true. If we are to apply God's wishes as law in the USA, then it is only right to apply ALL of God's wishes as law. What other advice are we forgetting? I think that there are many things that God wants and that God does not want, but I don't have time to go over every Godly like or dislike in the New Testament and list them and explain how we can go about making laws out of them.

Now, "THERE IS NO LOGICAL REASON WHY QUEERS SHOULD BE MARRIED WHEN THEY CAN HAVE THE SAME LEGAL RIGHTS AS MARRIAD COUPLES WITH A CIVIL UNION. It's not the normal heterosexual crowd that's trying to screw with nature here. It's the perverted queers. Marriage has got absolutely NOTHING to do with queers, and should stay that way. Why don't they think up something brand new to call their unholy union instead of marriage?



Okay. Do you believe that societal things can be "separate but equal"? Perhaps we should go back to having separate drinking fountains for Blacks and Whites, and separate restaurant dining areas, and even separate public restrooms. No. As it applies to societal conventions, things categorized separately are not equal. A "civil union" does not have the same connotation as "marriage" and it will not be treated the same.

Well hell then matts.... lets not stop there..... lets let people marry there sister, brother, mother, dog. You preach "no limits", then lets not have any....

 

[007]

Originally posted by mattskramer

Another point: If the part of the Bible concerning homosexuality is true,

Just so that you will not be any longer confused about how the Lord feels about queers....

1. The Law of God Speaks Against it:

Leviticus 18:22, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Leviticus 20:13, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Deuteronomy 23:17, "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel."

 

[mattskramer]

Originally posted by Pale Rider
I think you're wrong. There's plenty of examples of things that "DON'T" change also. Like we're not going to start calling day, night. Or we're not going to start calling a car a train.

In a general sense, inanimate concrete objects don't change. A car, by itself, doesn't turn into a train. Names might not change. We don't call a bed a tree. Yet, discovery, reasoning, and learning do change things. They result in definitions and understanding being changed. Marriage used to be even more restricted than it is today. It was understood that marriage was to be limited to the extent that people were not allowed to marry outside their race and religion. Voting was, by law, not only limited to men but also limited by race. A vote by a Black person was not of the same legal value as a vote by a White person.

But that won't change the fact that men don't marry men, and women don't marry women. Marriage already is what it is. It doesn't need to be desicrated by the perverted queer life style.

Men don't marry men in the legal sense because they are not allowed to get married. Yet "Hundreds of homosexual couples in Massachusetts yesterday received the nation's first state-sanctioned marriage licenses, amid joyous celebrations, weddings and music." http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040518-120218-3043r.htm You can dance around the question: Are they married? Are they legally married? Are they illegally married? Perhaps they are not married and only think that they are married. - Whatever. The point is that just as the legal definition and practical understanding of voting has changed and expanded, so it will be with marriage.

Ask yourself this, "will anyone in the future look back at what is happening today, and call it *the good old days*"?

I don't think that there were or will ever be any "good old days" People glamorize points in history but each generation had its difficulty. One reason why people came to America was to escape religious persecution. Yet, religious persecution soon established itself in Massachusetts. Many of my great grandfather's family members died from diseases easy treated, if not made extinct, by today's medical progress. People faced slavery, the mistreatment of the "Indians", and women not being allowed to vote. We had racial segregation and racism (We still have some racism to this day thanks to people like Dig D).

I think they're past long ago. Back when people knew right from wrong, and loved and respected the Lord and his message.

(1) Do you believe that there were "good old days"? (2) If so do you think that the good days were good because people respected this Lord and his message? There were no good old days. There were good thing and bad things in practically any generation. I don't mind people respecting the Lord and his message on their own within reason (I don't want to see another "Salem Witch Trial".)