Originally posted by robbie carrobieProsecution, as in litigation, being sued because you don't believe gays should be allowed to be married? I know you dislike gays but look on the bright side: If gays are legally married and get all the government perks just like straights who are married, that means there would be 2 less gays that could possibly come on to you so they would be out of the running in open society.
you have FAILED to answer the question, what guarantees have been furnished to those who do not accept the legitimacy of gay marriage that they will not suffer prosecution?
Doesn't that count for SOMETHING?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIn absence of a refutation, it would seem you have a vendetta against gays. Otherwise you would say, I have no problem with gays, but it seems clear that you DO have problems with the very concept of gayness and are in fact biased against gays. That is the conclusion one would logically reach.
Dude please, that's private.
Like the guy who is accused of some crime but says nothing, one assumes the worse, that he is guilty.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf I find some other Christians like you, will their personal opinions be secret, like yours, and will they refuse to endorse the Bible's "stance", like you have?
well then find someone else to discuss it with, i wont miss it or take it personally.
Originally posted by sonhousesure base your evaluations on mere assumptions, why change the habit of a lifetime?😵
In absence of a refutation, it would seem you have a vendetta against gays. Otherwise you would say, I have no problem with gays, but it seems clear that you DO have problems with the very concept of gayness and are in fact biased against gays. That is the conclusion one would logically reach.
Like the guy who is accused of some crime but says nothing, one assumes the worse, that he is guilty.
Originally posted by sonhouseI have no more against gays than I have against any other people. I have more against rapists, thiefs, murders, Islamic terrorists. My youngest son is gay and I love him, however, I do not wish the definition of marriage to change from the way God defined it in the beginning. There are other ways the gays can get their perks. They should leave the meaning of marriage alone.
In absence of a refutation, it would seem you have a vendetta against gays. Otherwise you would say, I have no problem with gays, but it seems clear that you DO have problems with the very concept of gayness and are in fact biased against gays. That is the conclusion one would logically reach.
Like the guy who is accused of some crime but says nothing, one assumes the worse, that he is guilty.
Originally posted by RJHindsthe definition of marriage as god defined it will not change, and the gays don't want that. they wish their marriage to be recognized in the country they live in, to be able to adopt, to be able to co sign on loans, and whatever other benefits married couples get. they want those. they want the same rights that other citizens get.
I have no more against gays than I have against any other people. I have more against rapists, thiefs, murders, Islamic terrorists. My youngest son is gay and I love him, however, I do not wish the definition of marriage to change from the way God defined it in the beginning. There are other ways the gays can get their perks. They should leave the meaning of marriage alone.
no sane gay person is expecting to change the catholic church into marrying two gays in church.
Originally posted by RJHindsanother answer to your post: what the fudge is your problem what other people do? does it affect you in any way? how petty must you be to deny something that doesn't harm you, to someone you didn't even met? does the fact that two people in love get married diminish your marriage in any way?
I have no more against gays than I have against any other people. I have more against rapists, thiefs, murders, Islamic terrorists. My youngest son is gay and I love him, however, I do not wish the definition of marriage to change from the way God defined it in the beginning. There are other ways the gays can get their perks. They should leave the meaning of marriage alone.
btw, i am eating icecream right now, come and ban me too, before i befoul your marriage with my icecream
Originally posted by Zahlanziit has nothing to do with RJH, he stated as much and everything to do with protecting the institution of marriage from rabid secular liberals bent of diminishing every form of morality in opposition to their secular liberal agenda.
another answer to your post: what the fudge is your problem what other people do? does it affect you in any way? how petty must you be to deny something that doesn't harm you, to someone you didn't even met? does the fact that two people in love get married diminish your marriage in any way?
btw, i am eating icecream right now, come and ban me too, before i befoul your marriage with my icecream
Originally posted by ZahlanziI love plain vanilla ice cream. My grandparents used to make very good homemade ice cream, always vanilla. However, let me get back to the main subject: Marriage.
another answer to your post: what the fudge is your problem what other people do? does it affect you in any way? how petty must you be to deny something that doesn't harm you, to someone you didn't even met? does the fact that two people in love get married diminish your marriage in any way?
btw, i am eating icecream right now, come and ban me too, before i befoul your marriage with my icecream
Since marriage is also a moral issue, redefining marriage is redefining morals. Legalizing gay marriage means changing the laws of the land. Homosexual marriage is not about what homosexuals are being forced by others not to do, but what society is being forced to do by homosexuals: approve. Here is a link to a website that says how gay marriage can be harmful:
http://carm.org/gay-marriage-harm
Originally posted by RJHindsFMF could not furbish a singe guarantee that those who do not accept the stance will not be subject to prosecution, lets see if he does any better with these,
I love plain vanilla ice cream. My grandparents used to make very good homemade ice cream, always vanilla. However, let me get back to the main subject: Marriage.
Since marriage is also a moral issue, redefining marriage is redefining morals. Legalizing gay marriage means changing the laws of the land. Homosexual marriage is not about what homosexuals ...[text shortened]... ink to a website that says how gay marriage can be harmful:
http://carm.org/gay-marriage-harm
If a parent objects to a school teaching pro-homosexuality and pulls his child out of school, and because of it is ridiculed and/or jailed, is he harmed?
If a self-employed business owner with strong religious convictions refuses to offer his services to homosexuals and he is sued and goes bankrupt, is he harmed?
If a Catholic orphanage is forced to shut down because it is against its religious moral code to turn children over to homosexual couples, is someone hurt?
If a public school teacher voices his disapproval of homosexuality on Facebook on his own time, away from work, in his own home, on his own computer, and is fired from his teaching position, is he harmed?
If a group of pro-homosexual activists (Act-UP) disrupt the worship service of a Christian congregation by throwing condoms at the pastor, is the congregation harmed?
If Christians are forced into silence because of fear of legal, social, and financial
retribution, are they harmed?
When morally conservative people who disapprove of homosexuality are labeled as "moral dinosaurs," "bigots," "hate mongers," "right wing fanatics," "preachers of hatred," "intolerant," are they harmed?
Originally posted by RJHindsGod did not define marriage, people did. This is an institution not more than a few hundred years old, before that, people just said, hey folks, we are together now, if you don't like it, tough shyte. That is the way it SHOULD be, if that happens to be two guys, two girls, a girl and a guy or a guy and a girl, so be it. It is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. But the religious nutters ALWAYS insist on it being their business. This is a civil rights issue and will not be suborned by religion. Religious nutters want to control EVERYBODY's private lives, life in their bedroom and I for one will fight that terrible repression with every fiber of my being even though I have a wife and kids, I fight for the rights of individuals Vs the government and religions. IT IS NONE OF YOUR DAM BUSINESS WHAT GOES ON INSIDE SOMEONE ELSE'S BEDROOMS and if two gays want to get married, what the hell business is it of yours to decide what they can do? For one thing, and this is a big thing, if two gays get married they are out of the game as far as some supposed fear some straights have of some gay person aggressively going after a straight dude. If they are married that is TWO gays out of that game, which is really stupid in the first place. Nothing but paranoia on the part of straight people to even think that. They look at two dudes holding hands in a food court or somewhere public and they start thinking, will those dudes corner me in the bathroom and rape me right then and there? That kind of thinking is disgusting but so prevalent in our society, a society of sexual repression going back hundreds of years.
I have no more against gays than I have against any other people. I have more against rapists, thiefs, murders, Islamic terrorists. My youngest son is gay and I love him, however, I do not wish the definition of marriage to change from the way God defined it in the beginning. There are other ways the gays can get their perks. They should leave the meaning of marriage alone.
Being gay is not a choice, lesbians don't get that way by just going through some gay door choice. They get that way because of genetics mixed with environment, for instance, deeply embedded mental states of a male child growing up with all girls, it is natural for SOME of those boys to end up thinking like girls and the same with girls raised with only boys. Of course not ALL, but some. Gayness is what, maximum, 5 percent of the population, always has been and ALWAYS WILL BE.
THERE IS NOTHING RELIGIOUS NUTTERS CAN EVER DO ABOUT THAT. The percentage of gays will stay constant despite laws banning it like in England in WW2, or death penalty like in some countries in Africa and some Muslim countries.
It matters not the slightest these repressive anti-civil rights laws and mores.
That 4 or 5% will keep coming up generation after generation and the greater the population, the higher that number will be.
For one thing, it is a safety valve on population growth, those gays and lesbians will contribute much less to the stifling population explosion and for that society should be grateful.
It is a civil rights issue and nothing more and nothing less.
If two dudes want to get married, they should have full rights under the law. PERIOD.
If two girls fall in love and want to get married NOBODY should raise their ugly heads over it, let them the hell alone and let them have the same spousal benefits like taxes, insurance, medical spousal benefits like any other couple.
Society will benefit from the relaxation of this centuries long repression and deaths of gays.
It will not destroy the idea of the family. It will bring society closer together not force it apart.
It is ALREADY forced apart by religious repression. Get over it and get on with your own lives and let gays and lesbians live together in peace without churches like that bunch of asssholes at that baptist church going to funerals and throwing hatred at people grieving for their lost loved ones.
That is a particularly reprehensible behavior by supposedly civilized humans.
They are ANYTHING but civilized. They are as repressive as any Nazi or communist of the past brutal eras.
The Supreme Court of the United Sates recently heard arguments in favor of same-sex marriage. Whatever is decided in the SCOTUS, acceptance of same-sex marriage has mostly won the day in the court of public opinion. I do not believe that the arguments for gay and lesbian marriage are biblical or logically persuasive or good for society in the long run. But they made their case and here’s how it was won. The reasons for homosexual marriage flowed with the contemporary mood.
It’s about progress: homosexual marriage is an idea whose time has come we are told. To be against gay marriage then is to be against progress and who wants to be in that camp? It makes you a barbarian! But many people forget that lots of ideas first seen as progressive, right and hailed as good and inevitable wound up on the junk heap: feudalism, National Socialism, communism, slavery, eugenics and the Chevy Volt.
It’s about love: when homosexual marriage is showcased as an expression of deep human love, who wants to be against love? But deep human love is not always self-affirming; sometimes it needs to be about self-denial. Sadly, mostly because of the failures and sins of those in failed heterosexual marriages our culture only sees marriage as the state putting its stamp of approval on romantic love. Marriage is seen as a relationship based on emotional intensity in which the couple is faithful to each other as long as the intensity lasts. The sacrifices that may be needed to maintain a marriage and bear and raise children are rarely thought about.
Male homosexuals are notorious for their promiscuity. Exclusivity is not their strength. So what happens to the children (from surrogate mothers – another can of worms) when marriages fail? Love is an important part of marriage, but not a basis for public policy. What if more than two people “love” one another (I’ll get to this in a moment)?
It’s about rights and equality: it is not by chance that the movement is called the gay rights movement. And I don’t deny that many homosexuals feel their basic human rights are in jeopardy. But all the chatter about rights confuses the issue. What law prohibits homosexuals from making promises to one another? The question is should the government call that promise a marriage? Homosexuals are asking for equal justice under the law. Who doesn’t want to wave the flag for equal rights?
During oral argument at the Supreme Court, advocates argued (as they have elsewhere) that impairing the right of homosexuals to marry is analogous to prohibiting interracial marriage and the only possible motive for opposing it is, well, you know, bigotry. But society has an interest in protecting the historic definition of marriage, because it is the first institution of society that creates and nurtures the next generation. Same-sex marriages do not naturally do this. Thus the state has a right to not recognize same-sex marriage because it harms society by destabilizing it.
Furthermore is it unjust for the government to not legalize a marriage of four people? What about a marriage of close cousins? What if all the people in the accounting office want to be married? What if I love my cat? Must the government legalize these unions if the participants feel their rights are denied? Is marriage now to be an anything goes union? That’s where this is all headed.
In their statement Beyond Same-Sex Marriage, more than 300 LGBT and allied scholars call for legally recognizing sexual relationships involving more than two partners. University of Calgary professor Elizabeth Brake states in her book Minimizing Marriage that justice requires legalizing same sex marriage to “denormalize the ideal of heterosexual monogamy.”
Lesbian journalist Victoria Brown in Something Borrowed, Something Blue: Is Marriage Right For Queers agrees. “When supporters of traditional marriage state that allowing same-sex marriage couples to marry will weaken the institution of marriage…It most certainly will do so, and that will make marriage a far better concept than it previously has been.” Professor Ellen Willis writing in The Nation boldly states “conferring the legitimacy of marriage on homosexual relations will introduce an implicit revolt against the institution into its very heart.”
Gay radio host Michelangelo Signorile in Out Magazine called for those in homosexual relationships to “demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution.” They should “fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, because the most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake…is to transform the notion of ‘family’ entirely.”
So what happens if the traditional family of mom, dad and children disintegrates? Well, ask yourself, what is already happening in our society because of broken homes? Sobering isn’t it. Can anyone else see Sodom and Gomorrah in the distance? So what can be done? The energy, the media and the protest slogans are all on the side of homosexual marriage.
First, Christians must prepare their families biblically for all of life and not just for the opposition we will face concerning same-sex marriage. We must realize that we are now not only a sub-culture but counter-cultural just as Christians were in the first century of our common era. Pastors must declare what the Scriptures declare about the meaning and purpose of all of life as well as marriage. Husbands and wives must make a commitment to their marriages to keep them strong and healthy. And we need to boldly speak the truth without fear and in love. The gospel is still “the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes (Romans 1:16).”