 |
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Jan 12, 2008, 06:00 AM
|
|
 Originally Posted by NeedKarma
If it was about gay civil unions (no church involved) do you think the answers would be different?
Yes! I, for example, have stated that if you want to call it a civil union - go right ahead. And that I am against gay marriages So I think the answers would be different.
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Jan 12, 2008, 06:33 AM
|
|
 Originally Posted by Jesushelper76
Its not natural, I have truly been biting my tongue here. I have posted my stance earlier. I feel this thread has gone all over the place and is never ending. This thread was about gay marriage and nothing else.
Joe
Whatever you mean by "natural" and whether you think homosexuality is or isn't such, the point is that homosexuality is no longer illegal. People who commit homosexual acts are not breaking the law. So there is no legal basis for denying them the right that the rest of us have to enter into binding and enforceable legal contracts to protect their property and family rights. If it makes you feel better to use a different word to refer to their contracts, I doubt that most of them would care, as long as the legal effect is the same.
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Jan 12, 2008, 09:55 AM
|
|
 Originally Posted by sGt HarDKorE
Gay animals out of the closet? - LiveScience - MSNBC.com
AWW MAN based on the above link over 1500 species of animals are going to hell :( They have been known to have sexual relationships...
"Homosexuality has been observed in more than 1,500 species, and the phenomenon has been well described for 500 of them."
I'd understand homosexuality being a choice if it was just humans, but sorry animals dont choose if they are gay... Try to explain that....
SIDENOTE: And instead of some quote from the bible that has nothing to do with animals or homosexuality, actually find a quote that has to do it with, anyone can twist words.
Yes it’s true, some people do still live like an ANIMAL, but rational people don’t. What you are talking about is animal lust for SEX. If marriage between the same sexes were natural it would be natural to have offspring. The male hole used between two men is for another reason... excrement.:)
|
|
 |
Full Member
|
|
Jan 12, 2008, 12:15 PM
|
|
 Originally Posted by sGt HarDKorE
Those animals go to animal hell then... Least thats what the bible says in a sense.
Not really, actually it says animals don't have a soul, which differenciates them from the humans.
|
|
 |
Full Member
|
|
Jan 12, 2008, 12:17 PM
|
|
 Originally Posted by NeedKarma
If it was about gay civil unions (no church involved) do you think the answers would be different?
Not mine. The fact that ministry is obligated to carry out the ceremony is just another reason not to legalize it, but that its wrong, and our country having been founded on the Word of God should not condone it.
|
|
 |
Jobs & Parenting Expert
|
|
Jan 12, 2008, 12:54 PM
|
|
 Originally Posted by Leidenschaftlich für Wahr
Not mine. The fact that ministry is obligated to carry out the cerimony is just another reason not to legalize it, but the fact of the matter is that its wrong, and our country having been founded on the Word of God should not condone it.
It's your interpretation of the Scriptures that it's wrong. And our country was not founded on the Word of God.
Yes, I'm a lifelong Christian.
|
|
 |
Uber Member
|
|
Jan 12, 2008, 01:25 PM
|
|
 Originally Posted by Leidenschaftlich für Wahr
and our country having been founded on the Word of God should not condone it.
That's so very incorrect.
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Jan 12, 2008, 01:26 PM
|
|
 Originally Posted by Dark_crow
If marriage between the same sexes were natural it would be natural to have offspring. The male hole used between two men is for another reason...excrement.:)
It's not about biology or reproduction, it's about equal protection under the law--a constitutional guarantee of citizenship.
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Jan 12, 2008, 01:47 PM
|
|
 Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
It's not about biology or reproduction, it's about equal protection under the law--a constitutional guarantee of citizenship.
It’s not about rights at all; there is no natural Right for two men to slosh around in each others excrement for their individual pleasure, it’s filthy and a crime against humanity and therefore it is not a right that ought to be granted by government.
|
|
 |
Uber Member
|
|
Jan 12, 2008, 02:04 PM
|
|
 Originally Posted by Dark_crow
It’s not about rights at all; there is no natural Right for two men to slosh around in each others excrement for their individual pleasure, it’s filthy and a crime against humanity and therefore it is not a right that ought to be granted by government.
You seem to be fixated on anal sex. Are you not aware that many good christian couples engage in anal sex as well?
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Jan 12, 2008, 02:14 PM
|
|
 Originally Posted by NeedKarma
You seem to be fixated on anal sex. Are you not aware that many good christian couples engage in anal sex as well?
I fix on it because we should explain it for what it is, not in the benign term of 'homosexual' 'or 'same sex marriage.' I fix on it because that is exactly the filthy act it represents.
I don't believe most Christians would agree that “Good Christians” engage in sloshing around in excrement.
|
|
 |
Uber Member
|
|
Jan 12, 2008, 02:16 PM
|
|
 Originally Posted by Dark_crow
It’s not about rights at all
Hello DC:
I agree, it's not about filthy sex. But, as long as the government grants RIGHTS to the "married" amongst us, and then refuses to let some people get "married", then this argument IS about rights. IF the government would take away the rights of the married people, then I wouldn't care if those filthy sex deviant's ever got married.
excon
|
|
 |
Uber Member
|
|
Jan 12, 2008, 02:16 PM
|
|
 Originally Posted by Dark_crow
I don’t believe most Christians would agree that “Good Christians” engage in sloshing around in excrement.
Then you would believe wrongly. You have no idea of the amount of hypocrisy that exists out there.
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Jan 12, 2008, 02:34 PM
|
|
 Originally Posted by excon
Hello DC:
I agree, it's not about filthy sex. But, as long as the government grants RIGHTS to the "married" amongst us, and then refuses to let some people get "married", then this argument IS about rights. IF the government would take away the rights of the married people, then I wouldn't care if those filthy sex deviant's ever got married.
excon
Hay EXCON
Rights are something that is guaranteed under the constitution, you appear to be confusing them with law. Laws can be written and rescinded, rights cannot. Therefore Marriage is not a right but rather a law. :)
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Jan 12, 2008, 02:35 PM
|
|
 Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Then you would believe wrongly. You have no idea of the amount of hypocrisy that exists out there.
You’re right, I haven’t been peeking into people’s bedrooms, but then I doubt that you have been either. So how is you can KNOW.:)
|
|
 |
Uber Member
|
|
Jan 12, 2008, 02:44 PM
|
|
 Originally Posted by Dark_crow
You’re right, I haven’t been peeking into people’s bedrooms, but then I doubt that you have been either. So how is you can KNOW.:)
How about you tell us what sex play you and the wife do that is condoned by the bible.
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Jan 12, 2008, 02:49 PM
|
|
 Originally Posted by Dark_crow
It’s not about rights at all; there is no natural Right for two men to slosh around in each others excrement for their individual pleasure, it’s filthy and a crime against humanity and therefore it is not a right that ought to be granted by government.
You're fighting the last war--the one over whether sodomy laws are constitutional. That war is over, and your side lost, sorry.
THIS debate is about whether citizens who are not lawbreakers can be denied the right that other citizens have to enter into binding legal contracts that protect their property and family rights, solely on the basis of their private, and now legal, sexual behavior.
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Jan 12, 2008, 02:51 PM
|
|
What's the Bible have to do with it? That feces is not something to play in was taught to me by my mother.
|
|
 |
Uber Member
|
|
Jan 12, 2008, 02:53 PM
|
|
 Originally Posted by Dark_crow
What's the Bible have to do with it? That feces is not something to play in was taught to me by my mother.
Ok, what sex play does your mom say is OK.
|
|
 |
Uber Member
|
|
Jan 12, 2008, 02:54 PM
|
|
 Originally Posted by Dark_crow
Rights are something that is guaranteed under the constitution, you appear to be confusing them with law. Laws can be written and rescinded, rights cannot. Therefore Marriage is not a right but rather a law. :)
Hello again, DC:
No argument there. It's a law all right.
However, if you read the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, you would find that it guarantees citizens EQUAL protection under the law.
To me, that means you can't make a law that confers rights upon one group, and excludes another. Like ALL Constitutional rights, this one is clear as a bell.
excon
|
|
Question Tools |
Search this Question |
|
|
Check out some similar questions!
I don't know what to do about my marriage
[ 5 Answers ]
Well a month ago I wrote on here about how I had a crush on my husband's best friend but that is fading away some. I still like him but I know we can't be together so there is no point. I have decided I need to put some energy into my marriage and tried to talk to my husband about our marriage. He...
Considering Marriage somewhat soon.
[ 4 Answers ]
Ok, I know you guys/gals probably get this all the time, am I/We ready...
I met my girlfriend on vacation a little over a year ago, and we talked several times week over the phone. ( I lived in another state) and I flew to see her once or twice a month at best. Well In May of last year we made...
Marriage
[ 6 Answers ]
I found out soon after my husband and I had a baby that he was intimately talking with one of his ex's basically telling her that he wished she had his baby instead of me and also leading her to believe that he was going to leave me for her. He also had contacted another ex saying that he loved...
Marriage
[ 5 Answers ]
My fiancé was put on probation almost 5 yrs ago. It was for a burglary that had taken place when he was 16. He is now 23 y/o and only 6 moths left on probation. We wanted to get married this winter, but his probation officer told us that she has to approve him to get married. I cannot find anything...
View more questions
Search
|