accepting gay marriage

[roderickh]

Why do many Christians say that accepting the legality of gay marriage somehow is forcing someone else's view on them? I want to understand the logic. Does it go like this: "My religious view is that homosexual behavior by others is sinful. If the government sanctions something I believe to be sinful, then the government it infringing on my rights."

Is this the view?

[nofreedom74]

I don't understand myself, but I have heard this expressed by Christains and other religious people. To me this kind of thinking is arrogant. What if I said that the church down the street is forcing their views on me due to the fact that I am anti-religious? In reality, this is not the case because I have the ability to choose not to go there and to not believe in it. I can tell my children to stay away and not talk to the church followers. This church in no way infringes on my rights (unless it petitions and influences government policy to support it's agenda ;0)
Since I am anti-religious, should I petition the government and ask that the church be shut down since they conflict with my beliefs?

Well, the argument against gay marriage is strikingly similar. Why can't people that are against it simply look the other way? They don't have to like it and it doesn't infringe on their individual rights. And for those that think someone else's marriage infringes on their rights are arrogant and intolerant. We all have the right to free choice (doesn't the bible agree with this also?) and who has the right to stop someone from pursuing their rights as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's?
Marriage is a legal issue, not a religious one. I thought we were at the point where this could be treated separately, but it appears this is not the case. And for those that think religion should be part of government, I feel they are seriously imposing on my rights, quite literally. People's understanding of a "god" has no place in government. Morality, which is innate in mankind, certainly does, but not people's interpretation of god. Government is not an instrument for religion to use. People have many different interpretations of god all of which can not proven with any indisputable evidence. How can these supernatural claims then be used in a legalistic setting? If anyone truly has indisputable evidence, I would really like to see it as I am very open minded.

I have heard the argument that gay marriage infringes on peoples' rights since it facilitates sexually transmitted disease which could in turn perpetuate the spread of disease. This argument is highly questionable since a certain type of intercourse, not gay marriage, could facilitate STDs. However, to entertain this argument about diseases, what if we were to apply this to all diseases? HIV can be spread through any intercourse, gay or otherwise. For those who make this argument, please tell us why only gay marriage or intercourse should be banned. After all, it is not gay intercourse that increases the risk of acquiring HIV, it is an__ intercourse. How about this...If someone were really concerned about the spread of disease, wouldn't you focus on tobacco smoking related issues? The last time I checked, second hand smoking related deaths far outnumbered deaths related to HIV infection caused from un-consensual contact.
This issue of gay marriage seems to be simply a ripe opportunity for certain people to literally impose their lifestyle beliefs on others. I suppose they failed when the opportunity to ban gay intercourse was presented so this is just a second opportunity to head in that direction.

I would like to see more acceptance on behalf of the religious community. Your "god" gave you free will yet some find it necessary to force their will on others. That doesn't seem to me like you are acting in the likeness of god. I understand Jesus' teaching, but never in the Bible have I seen him force his will on others. He went from town to town spreading his message trying to enlighten others. He never established legal guidelines and earthly punishments for non-believers. In fact instead of upholding the punishment for prostitution, Jesus asked that Mary receive no punishment from the "law makers". Again, why must you impose your beliefs on others? I am not even gay, yet these types of things are very disconcerting since I believe in democracy and free will.

[kobuk]

Two men have no proper anatomical structure to consumate a marriage. The part they do use was entirely designed for something else. Damage, disease and shame are the result of insisting on inventing another use..

[nofreedom74]

I have detailed specific reasons for my stance and kobuk posted a short dismissive statement that really does nothing to counter my argument. Please address my points specifically instead of posting a random emotional outburst.

I will specifically address these points directly none the less. "Two men have no proper anatomical structure to consumate a marriage." This statement makes assumptions and directives that are supported by your religious belief. First you say that marriage requires a proper anatomical structure and also requires consumation. Well, this is your belief, but not necessarily others belief. You see, the error here is that you have a definition of marriage that differs than other people's and you think that anything different should not be tolerated. You are not accepting the fact that there are non-religious and other views on what marriage is. Fundamentally, a marriage is a legally binding relationship formed through consent. The purpose of marriage varies completely upon the relationship. What makes you the authority and what qualifies you to force your definition on others? Again, Jesus never did this.

And again I ask, how is anatomy and defining "consumation" a legal issue as long as there is legal consent? Why does the government need to be involved with forcing and imposing a definition and reason for marriage onto consenting adults? I would like you to address this question in specific reference to the various points I have already made.

"Damage, disease and shame are the result of insisting on inventing another use.."

With this statement you claim to have knowledge that a certain action results in certain other actions (Damage, disease and shame). Please elaborate as I would like to understand what damage, disease, and shame you are referring to. By disease, I assume you refer to HIV and the like. You see, it's a very strange thing. HIV can be transmitted many ways but yet you make it seem that it only occurs in the gay community. It can be contracted through any blood contact, needle use and through certain fluid contact during intercourse. In no way is this specific to gay intercourse. Please don't tell me that you are trying to say that HIV is God's punishment to gays, as I have heard so often. If my last few sentences aren't enough to disprove this arrogant and unfounded statement, then how about this: Please provide specific proof and evidence that it is "God's punishment". It's very difficult to debate without facts, so please bring some to the table. And now to the shame part of your comment. What shame do you refer to. These people are happy and are not ashamed. Since you think it is wrong, they should be ashamed? This is a very self centered and fulfilling comment. You seem to know what is right and wrong and what people should be ashamed of. Again, what qualifies you on this issue? There are many different perspectives and you seem very intolerant and very ready to unreasonably impose your "enlightened" viewpoints on others. Jesus never taught intolerance and there are many biblical references i can point to. So, how are you being Christ like by judging others (i remember certain biblical references about how you shouldn't judge others) and imposing your beliefs on others. This actually seems the opposite of Christ-like. Please tell me this isn't so. Also, doesn't imposing your will on others conflict with allowing people to make their own choices? Didn't god give us free will? Who are you to take free will away from 2 consenting adults? I would like your or anyone's critique on my points above and below as I have yet to hear any to this point.

Thank you

[kobuk]

Why do many Christians say that accepting the legality of gay marriage somehow is forcing someone else's view on them? I want to understand the logic. Does it go like this: "My religious view is that homosexual behavior by others is sinful. If the government sanctions something I believe to be sinful, then the government it infringing on my rights."

Is this the view?
I think they oppose it mainly for the main reason i was trying to say earlier in this thread. Gay-ism between men is un-natural and a physically incompatible union, thus we read in Scripture Yah's very strong view on the subject.

Marriage was created by our Creator as the symbol of the Union between Yahshua and His Bride the Church. One man and one women. It's His institution. Nobody has any right to change it. ;)

[PaladinGirl]

I think they oppose it mainly for the main reason i was trying to say earlier in this thread. Gay-ism between men is un-natural and a physically incompatible union, thus we read in Scripture Yah's very strong view on the subject.

Marriage was created by our Creator as the symbol of the Union between Yahshua and His Bride the Church. One man and one women. It's His institution. Nobody has any right to change it. ;)
If "gay-ism" is so unnatural then why is homosexuality exhibited in animals as well?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals

[Iosias]

Why do many Christians say that accepting the legality of gay marriage somehow is forcing someone else's view on them?

The argument, as I understand it, runs thus; all law reflects a morality and it is a nonsense to argue that law is neutral. When the Magistrate enacts legislation that goes against the law of God it is enforcing an immoral law and as citizens we must live by the law. Therefore when the Magistrate says that marriage is between a man and a man, a woman and a woman, a man and a woman it is enforcing a view that is contrary to the Christian world-view based upon Scripture.

Let us recall that one purpose of the Magistrate is to promote that which is right in the sight of God so punishing wickedness and rewarding virtue.

I hope this helps. :)

[Project 86]

If "gay-ism" is so unnatural then why is homosexuality exhibited in animals as well?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals

Animals are fallen creatures just as are humans. The Bible is clear that homosexual actions are sinful. We see what harm it does to those that partake in the action and others as well.

[Iosias]

Animals are fallen creatures just as are humans. The Bible is clear that homosexual actions are sinful. We see what harm it does to those that partake in the action and others as well.

Aside from the fact that just because Wikipedia asserts something does not mean it is true :)

[Hentenza]

[quote=nofreedom74;38473428]I don't understand myself, but I have heard this expressed by Christains and other religious people. To me this kind of thinking is arrogant. What if I said that the church down the street is forcing their views on me due to the fact that I am anti-religious? In reality, this is not the case because I have the ability to choose not to go there and to not believe in it. I can tell my children to stay away and not talk to the church followers. This church in no way infringes on my rights (unless it petitions and influences government policy to support it's agenda ;0)
Since I am anti-religious, should I petition the government and ask that the church be shut down since they conflict with my beliefs?

You can petition since this country is democratic. ;)

Well, the argument against gay marriage is strikingly similar. Why can't people that are against it simply look the other way? They don't have to like it and it doesn't infringe on their individual rights. And for those that think someone else's marriage infringes on their rights are arrogant and intolerant. We all have the right to free choice (doesn't the bible agree with this also?) and who has the right to stop someone from pursuing their rights as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's?

How is the argument of SSM similar to your church analogy? Why would I "look away" and not exact my voter rights on an issue that I consider not natural and don't support? You have the right to free choice but I don't have to like your choice nor do I have to support it. I have as much right to be against SSMs as you are have to being for it. You are obviously here discussing it, so why don't you just simply look the other way? Why do you feel so strongly to discuss this issue?


Marriage is a legal issue, not a religious one. I thought we were at the point where this could be treated separately, but it appears this is not the case. And for those that think religion should be part of government, I feel they are seriously imposing on my rights, quite literally. People's understanding of a "god" has no place in government. Morality, which is innate in mankind, certainly does, but not people's interpretation of god. Government is not an instrument for religion to use. People have many different interpretations of god all of which can not proven with any indisputable evidence. How can these supernatural claims then be used in a legalistic setting? If anyone truly has indisputable evidence, I would really like to see it as I am very open minded.


So should religious people not vote? Should religious people not express their opinions? How's imposing on who here?


I have heard the argument that gay marriage infringes on peoples' rights since it facilitates sexually transmitted disease which could in turn perpetuate the spread of disease. This argument is highly questionable since a certain type of intercourse, not gay marriage, could facilitate STDs. However, to entertain this argument about diseases, what if we were to apply this to all diseases? HIV can be spread through any intercourse, gay or otherwise. For those who make this argument, please tell us why only gay marriage or intercourse should be banned. After all, it is not gay intercourse that increases the risk of acquiring HIV, it is an__ intercourse. How about this...If someone were really concerned about the spread of disease, wouldn't you focus on tobacco smoking related issues? The last time I checked, second hand smoking related deaths far outnumbered deaths related to HIV infection caused from un-consensual contact.

Homosexual intercourse is not natural. The parts were not designed for it. I don't have enough information to accuse homosexual intercourse of spreading the HIV virus, however, in my opinion it sure contributes to it.

This issue of gay marriage seems to be simply a ripe opportunity for certain people to literally impose their lifestyle beliefs on others. I suppose they failed when the opportunity to ban gay intercourse was presented so this is just a second opportunity to head in that direction.


Baloney. If I don't agree with ANY proposed law, I have every right to express my opinion and vote accordingly. I don't agree with SSM so I will express my opinion and lobby against it. And whether my opinion is religious or secular is none of your business.

I would like to see more acceptance on behalf of the religious community. Your "god" gave you free will yet some find it necessary to force their will on others. That doesn't seem to me like you are acting in the likeness of god. I understand Jesus' teaching, but never in the Bible have I seen him force his will on others. He went from town to town spreading his message trying to enlighten others. He never established legal guidelines and earthly punishments for non-believers. In fact instead of upholding the punishment for prostitution, Jesus asked that Mary receive no punishment from the "law makers". Again, why must you impose your beliefs on others? I am not even gay, yet these types of things are very disconcerting since I believe in democracy and free will.


Our God, as you call it, gave everyone free will. Some choose to accept the gospel and others do not. There are churches that are more tolerant of gays than others, however, a large majority is against it because we consider it a sin. The people that consider it a sin will vote against it and probably will express their opinions against SSMs. From a secular perspective, that is our right as citizens of this country and I will vote according to my beliefs.

You seem to think that religious institutions are forcing their will on you. How so?

[sageoffools]

The thing that people do not seem to understand is that every law infringes on someone else's "rights".
When the government posts a speed limit, it is infringing on the "rights" of people to speed. When they say that you cannot steal, they are infringing on someone's "right" to take something they want. Any way you look at it every law is forcing a person or group of people's belief on someone else.
Now, the common argument is that these things are bad because they hurt other people.
Well,
1. Not every law bans things that hurt other people. For example there is a law here, and many places, that says you must wear a seatbelt while driving. This does not affect anyone else in any way.
2. Where is the line drawn? If we say that marriage is between something other than 1 man and 1 woman, who decides where that stops?
If we allow 2 men to marry, because they are "not hurting anyone else" who is to say that we cannot allow a brother and sister to marry, or a brother and brother, or a mother and son, or a father and daughter? As long as they both consent, why should they not marry, what ground do we have to stand on?
If the only criteria for what is right is that it must make someone happy and not hurt someone else, we have no argument against any of these things. What about minors minors? Who are we to say that they are too young to make their own decisions? As long as the 9 year old is happy with it and it "doesn't hurt anyone else" then we would have to allow it, based on this argument.

Even the homosexuals realize this, though they wont admit it. When the homosexuals started really pushing to have gay marriage legalized here in the US, the transgender and "family love" groups tried to get on the bandwagon and hang on the coattails of the gay rights movement. However, even the gay rights activists stood against them, they spoke out openly against these other groups. The problem is, they have no ground for their argument.

[Albion]

Why do many Christians say that accepting the legality of gay marriage somehow is forcing someone else's view on them? I want to understand the logic. Does it go like this: "My religious view is that homosexual behavior by others is sinful. If the government sanctions something I believe to be sinful, then the government it infringing on my rights." Is this the view?

No.

The view is not focused upon "legality" so much as it is concerned with "marriage." Two people of the same sex can no more be married--regardless of what the government proclaims--than two housecats can be married or two flowers in the backyard can be married.

It is not so much a matter of our rights, or theirs either, as it is the government passing laws against marriage--which is what legalizing gay "marriage" amounts to.

[kobuk]

Dolphins do it. Act sexual - male to male. Must be ok then? That's what i heard earlier in the thread. That the observable fact of nature that some males of some animal species get horny on each other when ripened for sex by hormones during the mating season - might possibly justify human gay-ism.

There's a CURSE on all of creation since the FALL. That would explain everything that's wierd today.

[nofreedom74]

[quote=Hentenza;38495724][quote]

You can petition since this country is democratic. ;)

I am aware of this, however, you are missing the point. The point is that I wouldn't because it would be ridiculous to since I would be imposing on the church's rights.


How is the argument of SSM similar to your church analogy? Why would I "look away" and not exact my voter rights on an issue that I consider not natural and don't support? You have the right to free choice but I don't have to like your choice nor do I have to support it. I have as much right to be against SSMs as you are have to being for it. You are obviously here discussing it, so why don't you just simply look the other way? Why do you feel so strongly to discuss this issue?

Exacting your voter rights does not apply to this issue because people do not have the right to infringe on other people's rights. Just as exacting my voter rights does not apply to my church example. I shouldn't have the right to impose on religious people's rights when they are not effecting what I can do in my life. These gay people want acknowledgment and a piece of paper. You would be infringing on their rights by taking this freedom away and imposing your belief on them. They are not infringing on your rights by getting this piece of paper and their relationship being legally recognized. Who are you to waive your finger?


So should religious people not vote? Should religious people not express their opinions? How's imposing on who here?

I have raised no issue of voting not have I suggested they not vote or express their opinion. I never said they shouldn't express their opinions. They should however recognize that the law must be based on what can be proven and what is fair. It is entirely inappropriate though to bring unproven claims of god's word and nature into a legalistic setting.


Homosexual intercourse is not natural. The parts were not designed for it. I don't have enough information to accuse homosexual intercourse of spreading the HIV virus, however, in my opinion it sure contributes to it.

Please prove that it is not natural. You see, here you claim to have a definition of what is "natural". This is an objective claim and one that is not based on any fact. I can say that homosexuality occurs quite frequently in other animal species so it is not an invention of the human species. Some homo intercourse contributes to HIV but not all does if they are faithful to one another. I wouldn't be surprised if straight intercourse has infected more people. Even if this is not the case, ALL intercourse can contribute so I don't see the validity to your point.

Baloney. If I don't agree with ANY proposed law, I have every right to express my opinion and vote accordingly. I don't agree with SSM so I will express my opinion and lobby against it. And whether my opinion is religious or secular is none of your business.

Correct. You have the right to ATTEMPT to impose your beliefs on others and lobby against it. It's only a matter of time before this is legal as it would be discriminatory to continue this prohibition. It's only a matter of time before democracy prevails.

Our God, as you call it, gave everyone free will. Some choose to accept the gospel and others do not. There are churches that are more tolerant of gays than others, however, a large majority is against it because we consider it a sin. The people that consider it a sin will vote against it and probably will express their opinions against SSMs. From a secular perspective, that is our right as citizens of this country and I will vote according to my beliefs.

Why is Jesus so tolerant and you are so quick to control people's lives?

You seem to think that religious institutions are forcing their will on you. How so?

I believe that they indirectly force their will on me because the government is subject to the lobbying of religious groups. The president clearly is acting out his fanatical and unfounded end of times beliefs. Government policies are clearly influenced by religious lobbying. How bout all of the tax benefits these organizations get? Just because it's in the name of "god". I feel discriminated against due to this unfair tax treatment.

[nofreedom74]

No.

The view is not focused upon "legality" so much as it is concerned with "marriage." Two people of the same sex can no more be married--regardless of what the government proclaims--than two housecats can be married or two flowers in the backyard can be married.

It is not so much a matter of our rights, or theirs either, as it is the government passing laws against marriage--which is what legalizing gay "marriage" amounts to."



Yes. This is a legal issue. Marriage is a legal term and there are specific laws surrounding it. SSM is not legal. This "legality" is precisely the issue. Preventing consenting adults from doing this is discrimination and an infringement on theit rights. How do you compare inanimate objects and animals to 2 consenting adults? The difference in your comparison is that there is a thing called legal consent. Humans can give consent. Flowers and animals can not. Did I really even have to explain something so obvious??

[Project 86]

Preventing consenting adults from doing this is discrimination and an infringement on theit rights.

Gay people have the same rights as people that are not gay. They can marry. Marriage isn't between two of the same sex. God defined marriage a long time ago. You seem to want to change God's definition though. So please don't act like gay people don't have the same rights as everyone else. That is an untrue argument which should fall flat on it's face every time some one tries to use it.

[Albion]

No.

The view is not focused upon "legality" so much as it is concerned with "marriage." Two people of the same sex can no more be married--regardless of what the government proclaims--than two housecats can be married or two flowers in the backyard can be married.

It is not so much a matter of our rights, or theirs either, as it is the government passing laws against marriage--which is what legalizing gay "marriage" amounts to."

..............................................................................

[quote] Yes. This is a legal issue. Marriage is a legal term

That may be your primary mistake. Marriage is an institution that predates any laws we operate under. What the government did was recognize and institutionalize a human situation that it did not create itself.

SSM is not legal.

Right. And it is also not possible.

Preventing consenting adults from doing this is discrimination and an infringement on theit rights.

Gays have exactly the same rights as Heterosexuals to marry in this country and under our laws. It is nonsense to say that they are not allowed to marry. If they choose NOT to marry a person of the opposite sex, that is their choice, just as no one is required to be married, whether gay, nonsexual, or heterosexual. We also are not allowed, under law, to marry a group of people, children, or our closest relatives. Are these, to you, also cases of denying people their "rights?"

How do you compare inanimate objects and animals to 2 consenting adults?

As you know, the point was that marriage is impossible for any of the cases I used for purposes of example. Do you disagree that there is no point in talking about marriage between housecats...because it is impossible for them TO BE married?

[sageoffools]

Preventing consenting adults from doing this is discrimination and an infringement on theit rights. How do you compare inanimate objects and animals to 2 consenting adults? The difference in your comparison is that there is a thing called legal consent. Humans can give consent. Flowers and animals can not. Did I really even have to explain something so obvious??



nofreedom, As I stated in my earlier post, fine, lets use an example of 2 consenting adults, a brother and sister, or a brother and brother, should they be allowed to marry? What does it matter to you if they do? How about a father and daughter?
If your answer is "no" they should not marry, who are you to judge and decide that they should not be married? Why should we draw the line at unrelated man-man or woman-woman marriage?

If your answer is "yes" brothers should be allowed to marry, (or sisters, or anyone that wants to) then the anything done between 2 consenting people is right. So we should also legalize assisted suicide and wife swapping...hey, why make it only between 2 consenting people? We should also legalize polygamy, just so long as they all consent!

[kobuk]

[quote=nofreedom74;38506542]No.
Gays have exactly the same rights as Heterosexuals to marry in this country and under our laws. It is nonsense to say that they are not allowed to marry.
I disagree, based on the actual reality out there.

It's a State Legislature decision. In most States gay marriage is not legal. And only very recently were the laws against "buggary" stricken off the books everywhere. Sodomy used to be very illegal in most places.

States regulate marriage.

However. There is some efforts made by some to ammend the USA Constitution to make it a National law that marriage is to be only between one man and one women. But beware. Politicians often pack into their Constitutional Amendment proposals some pure garbage, like they did in 1913 when they pushed through their IRS and Federal Reserve. And as that turned out, it was never even properly ratified by all of the States. But they foist it upon us anyways.

Read -- "The Creature From Jykle Island".

[nofreedom74]

The thing that people do not seem to understand is that every law infringes on someone else's "rights".
When the government posts a speed limit, it is infringing on the "rights" of people to speed. When they say that you cannot steal, they are infringing on someone's "right" to take something they want. Any way you look at it every law is forcing a person or group of people's belief on someone else.
Now, the common argument is that these things are bad because they hurt other people.
Well,
1. Not every law bans things that hurt other people. For example there is a law here, and many places, that says you must wear a seatbelt while driving. This does not affect anyone else in any way.
2. Where is the line drawn? If we say that marriage is between something other than 1 man and 1 woman, who decides where that stops?
If we allow 2 men to marry, because they are "not hurting anyone else" who is to say that we cannot allow a brother and sister to marry, or a brother and brother, or a mother and son, or a father and daughter? As long as they both consent, why should they not marry, what ground do we have to stand on?
If the only criteria for what is right is that it must make someone happy and not hurt someone else, we have no argument against any of these things. What about minors minors? Who are we to say that they are too young to make their own decisions? As long as the 9 year old is happy with it and it "doesn't hurt anyone else" then we would have to allow it, based on this argument.

Even the homosexuals realize this, though they wont admit it. When the homosexuals started really pushing to have gay marriage legalized here in the US, the transgender and "family love" groups tried to get on the bandwagon and hang on the coattails of the gay rights movement. However, even the gay rights activists stood against them, they spoke out openly against these other groups. The problem is, they have no ground for their argument.



It is not my business if 2 consenting adults want legal recognition of their relationship. The issue however is complicated by the fact that there is a high risk of close relatives having impaired offspring. However, I digress to my original point that marriage can be different things to different people. At a fundamental level, a "marriage" is simply a legally binding agreement between 2 consenting adults surrounding their relationship. The agreement that constitutes the marriage as well as the "relationship" are very dynamic in nature. It is unfair and against your god's teachings to impose your beliefs on people. Why should your OPINION of what marriage should be be forced on others?

You are correct when you say that every law can potentially infringe or limit other people's rights. The reason this is done is to prevent people from killing each other and to facilitate an environment where people can live their lives. It is a tremendous stretch to apply this concept to SSM as SSM in no way, shape, or form prevents other citizens from living their lives. 2 gay people that want a piece of paper from the government are not imposing on you living your life. On the contrary, by you saying no, you are bullying and discriminating against these people thus denying them the rights you have.

So I state the following. Why do you want to deny these people from having a legally recognized relationship? What are you gaining from this and by preventing this, how is it improving your life? Why do you force "god's will" on people when you simultaneously believe that god gave free will?

I really don't see what anti SSM people are so afraid of. I don't see how this effects your lives and I see your unaccepting attitude as contrary to the your own teachings. I also see you as bullies in a school yard making the small children do what you want.

[nofreedom74]

Please see my responses in black

[quote=nofreedom74;38506542]No.

The view is not focused upon "legality" so much as it is concerned with "marriage." Two people of the same sex can no more be married--regardless of what the government proclaims--than two housecats can be married or two flowers in the backyard can be married.

It is not so much a matter of our rights, or theirs either, as it is the government passing laws against marriage--which is what legalizing gay "marriage" amounts to."

..............................................................................



That may be your primary mistake. Marriage is an institution that predates any laws we operate under. What the government did was recognize and institutionalize a human situation that it did not create itself.

This is your mistake since not everyone agrees with primitive man's interpretation of god. You see this is a very narrow definition you provide. Please prove that marriage is an institution. Please define "institution". Once you have done this, please prove to me with FACTUAL EVIDENCE that can be verified that you are correct in your understanding and interpretation of the definition of marriage. Government does recognize what the human species created - as we call it, marriage. It bases it's laws around tradition, consent, and, as of right now what is deemed socially acceptable. Don't worry though. This will change as this falls into the category of free will and democracy and I hope these gay people sue the government for discrimination based on sexual orientation.


Right. And it is also not possible. Possible is such a strong word. A gay relationship is possible as a matter of fact. All that requires a gay marriage is some old people in washington signing a piece of paper that would allow it. Very far from impossible I would say.



Gays have exactly the same rights as Heterosexuals to marry in this country and under our laws. It is nonsense to say that they are not allowed to marry. If they choose NOT to marry a person of the opposite sex, that is their choice, just as no one is required to be married, whether gay, nonsexual, or heterosexual. We also are not allowed, under law, to marry a group of people, children, or our closest relatives. Are these, to you, also cases of denying people their "rights?"

Yes. You literally are denying them their "rights". Isn't that obvious when "god" gave us free will?



As you know, the point was that marriage is impossible for any of the cases I used for purposes of example. Do you disagree that there is no point in talking about marriage between housecats...because it is impossible for them TO BE married?
Yes. Animals can not be married because they are not governed by the rules of man and we would not understand a key element - consent. I hate to say this, but DUH!!!! Come on. Now that we have that in the open, please explain why you compare 2 consenting adults decision with that of 2 plants. I would like to see the amount of true hatred and contempt you have for these people. Don't let back now!

The view is not focused upon "legality" so much as it is concerned with "marriage." Two people of the same sex can no more be married--regardless of what the government proclaims--than two housecats can be married or two flowers in the backyard can be married.

It is not so much a matter of our rights, or theirs either, as it is the government passing laws against marriage--which is what legalizing gay "marriage" amounts to."

It is about their rights, and certainly has nothing to do with your rights. They want the right to get married. I would say with much certainty that someone that wants to get married and is denied their rights, that they have an issue with what their rights actually are.

[nofreedom74]

Gay people have the same rights as people that are not gay. They can marry. Marriage isn't between two of the same sex. God defined marriage a long time ago. You seem to want to change God's definition though. So please don't act like gay people don't have the same rights as everyone else. That is an untrue argument which should fall flat on it's face every time some one tries to use it.
Please prove that god defined marriage and please provide the date he did this. I would love to see evidence. How reliable was the person god gave this message to? Was it altered over the course of time? Again, let's see some hard evidence that I can verify for these issues i raise. Also, please explain why you are required to force god's will on other people. Isn't this interfering with free will that the same god gave us?

The fact is that gay people don't have the same rights - the right to get married. That seems like a very clear and specific example of how they don't have the same rights. Is SSM now legal or am i missing something.

[Albion]

Please see my responses in black

Why don't you just use the "quote" box style everyone else does? It would make it easier to follow everything.


Yes. Animals can not be married because they are not governed by the rules of man and we would not understand a key element - consent. I hate to say this, but DUH!!!! Come on. Now that we have that in the open, please explain why you compare 2 consenting adults decision with that of 2 plants. I would like to see the amount of true hatred and contempt you have for these people. Don't let back now!

Please don't turn a reasoned debate into a silly exercise in character assassination, replete with expressions of mock outrage. I have dealt soley with your ideas and you can do the same with mine in return.

The view is not focused upon "legality" so much as it is concerned with "marriage." Two people of the same sex can no more be married--regardless of what the government proclaims--than two housecats can be married or two flowers in the backyard can be married....It is not so much a matter of our rights, or theirs either, as it is the government passing laws against marriage--which is what legalizing gay "marriage" amounts to."

it is about their rights, and certainly has nothing to do with your rights.

No, it isn't about their rights. It isn't about rights at all. You've just chosen to call their wants "rights." You have not in the least shown that this is a matter of right. They have the same rights as everyone else. That has been pointed out by more than one person here and there's been no refutation of it.

They want the right to get married.

They have the same right to marry as the rest of us do. They just want something else.

[Albion]

[quote=Albion;38521336]
I disagree, based on the actual reality out there.

It's a State Legislature decision. In most States gay marriage is not legal. And only very recently were the laws against "buggary" stricken off the books everywhere. Sodomy used to be very illegal in most places.

States regulate marriage.

However. There is some efforts made by some to ammend the USA Constitution to make it a National law that marriage is to be only between one man and one women. But beware. Politicians often pack into their Constitutional Amendment proposals some pure garbage, like they did in 1913 when they pushed through their IRS and Federal Reserve. And as that turned out, it was never even properly ratified by all of the States. But they foist it upon us anyways.

Read -- "The Creature From Jykle Island".


You obviously missed the point. Gays can marry members of the opposite sex just like Heterosexuals can do. Therefore, the claim that they are denied the rights the rest of us enjoy is bogus.

[Project 86]

Please prove that god defined marriage and please provide the date he did this. I would love to see evidence. How reliable was the person god gave this message to? Was it altered over the course of time? Again, let's see some hard evidence that I can verify for these issues i raise. Also, please explain why you are required to force god's will on other people. Isn't this interfering with free will that the same god gave us?

The fact is that gay people don't have the same rights - the right to get married. That seems like a very clear and specific example of how they don't have the same rights. Is SSM now legal or am i missing something.

Genesis 2:21-25
21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Matthew 19:4-6
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.


This happened about 6000 years ago. This comes from a very reliable source, the Bible. Adam would have passed it on until Moses wrote it down. Jesus then verified this as good information himself! Why do you think anyone should be able to define marriage as they want? You then start making words meaningless because you think you can give whatever definition pleases you. I'll repeat myself, gay people have the same rights to get married. They can't redefine marriage to what they want though.

[Aibrean]

Too many people try to sugar-coat the Bible so they can continually live in habitual sin and "justify themselves" through their twisted out-of-context interpretations.

Christians are not of this world. We do not need to accept the way society is because everyone else is. We should not play down people's blatant disrespect for God and the Bible.

On the subject of marriage...it is typical that when wedded the person marrying says "to which God has joined, let no man separate." (obviously in reference to Mark 10:9) To marry same-gender and say that is a slap in God's face in my opinion.

[Albion]

The fact is that gay people don't have the same rights - the right to get married. That seems like a very clear and specific example of how they don't have the same rights.

As you know, that is a lie. You have been called on saying this cute turn of phrase, so it's time to give it up.

There is no county or city clerk's office in the country in which a person applying for a marriage license is automatically asked if he or she is gay. I can marry a person of the opposite sex and so can they. If they choose NOT to do so, their rights are not enfringed any more than mine would be if I were eligible for Social Security benefits and decided, for whatever reason, not to apply.

[nofreedom74]

For the gentleman quoting the bible, please answer my question. Please prove that this message came from god. Since the message came from such an important being, i would like the exact day he gave it to adam. If aliens from outerspace were to come to earth, i think everyone would agree on the date. Also, please prove that this person receiving the message was mentally fit and was not hallucinating or just lying, or maybe had an intention that you are not considering. Also, please prove the message wasn't altered over the course of time. Since many of the messages were passed by word of mouth for many, many years and there were many second and third hand accounts, how do you know your book is so accurate? Please supply facts and evidence as i have seen no such evidence to date. Also consider that the bible itself is a compilation of writings selected among many religious texts. The individual texts (which were not direct accounts to begin with) were never intended to be combined by the authors.

Now, back to SSM. It is funny that no one is admitting that there opposition is not christ like given that christ was accepting of people with alternative lifestyles (mary m is one example). Am I more christ-like by allowing these people to live their lives how they want? This is how I see it.
Now to clear up the issue of semantics. When I say "right to marry", it is intended to mean right to marry someone of the same sex. So most of the comments above regarding gays having the right to marry the opposite sex have absolutely no relevance. I would think this would be understood given what the topic of discussion is. However, you are so sure of yourselves and refuse to accept that other people define marriage differently than you, so this should be of little surprise.

No one has proved to me with any contrary evidence any of the many points I have made on these pages. I won't retype them but if you read, you will what I am referring to and that many of the issues i have raised have not been directly addressed.

You see, it is only a matter of time before democracy prevails and gays have the right to marry (members of the same sex). It is inevitable just as woman voting and slavery, etc. Discrimination is unacceptable in a democratic system. I ask that everyone stop trying to control people and allow people to exercise their free will when it does not impose on your own free will.

It is clear that legal recognition of SSM has no effect on your rights. Why must you point the finger? Why must you condemn? Why must you interfere with someone else's will? This is not characteristic of your religious teachings and seems hypocritical. Please be tolerant and loving and accepting like jesus.

[Hentenza]

[quote=nofreedom74;38567927]For the gentleman quoting the bible, please answer my question. Please prove that this message came from god. Since the message came from such an important being, i would like the exact day he gave it to adam. If aliens from outerspace were to come to earth, i think everyone would agree on the date. Also, please prove that this person receiving the message was mentally fit and was not hallucinating or just lying, or maybe had an intention that you are not considering. Also, please prove the message wasn't altered over the course of time. Since many of the messages were passed by word of mouth for many, many years and there were many second and third hand accounts, how do you know your book is so accurate? Please supply facts and evidence as i have seen no such evidence to date. Also consider that the bible itself is a compilation of writings selected among many religious texts. The individual texts (which were not direct accounts to begin with) were never intended to be combined by the authors.


Explaining this to you would be like explaining the heat of south Texas to an Eskimo. Unless you've felt it just doesn't make much sense. You can show me websites that claim errors in the bible and I can show you websites that refute it. This has been hashed to death in this website and in real life. I would suggest that you do some better research.
Now, back to SSM. It is funny that no one is admitting that there opposition is not christ like given that christ was accepting of people with alternative lifestyles (mary m is one example). Am I more christ-like by allowing these people to live their lives how they want? This is how I see it.
Now to clear up the issue of semantics. When I say "right to marry", it is intended to mean right to marry someone of the same sex. So most of the comments above regarding gays having the right to marry the opposite sex have absolutely no relevance. I would think this would be understood given what the topic of discussion is. However, you are so sure of yourselves and refuse to accept that other people define marriage differently than you, so this should be of little surprise.

No one has proved to me with any contrary evidence any of the many points I have made on these pages. I won't retype them but if you read, you will what I am referring to and that many of the issues i have raised have not been directly addressed.

You see, it is only a matter of time before democracy prevails and gays have the right to marry (members of the same sex). It is inevitable just as woman voting and slavery, etc. Discrimination is unacceptable in a democratic system. I ask that everyone stop trying to control people and allow people to exercise their free will when it does not impose on your own free will.

It is clear that legal recognition of SSM has no effect on your rights. Why must you point the finger? Why must you condemn? Why must you interfere with someone else's will? This is not characteristic of your religious teachings and seems hypocritical. Please be tolerant and loving and accepting like jesus. Again, SSM's are not natural. Homosexual intercourse is nothing but fornication. The parts are not designed to work together. Actually in one subset there are no parts to work together at all. :doh:

And, what do you know about Jesus? How do you know that Jesus would have accepted SSMs or be tolerant? The scriptures are completely against it.

I will continue to be against SSMs until the day I die. You believe that democracy will eventually "win" and SSMs will become like any other marriage. Well, I suggest that you keep voting for it because I will continue to vote against it. There, my vote will always cancel yours. Keep that in mind.:thumbsup:

[Albion]

Now, back to SSM. It is funny that no one is admitting that there opposition is not christ like given that christ was accepting of people with alternative lifestyles (mary m is one example).

I don't know where you got the idea that Christ accepted just anything. He did accept some people whom society scorned unfairly, but like his treatment of the woman at the well whom he told to "sin no more" he clearly discriminated between the person and the action. He also firmly said that the lukewarm would be rejected as well as all who were fornicators and unclean, etc. To say that Jesus accepted any and all under all circumstances is a popular debating tactic; it's just demonstrably untrue.

I more christ-like by allowing these people to live their lives how they want? This is how I see it.

I doubt that very much. You say this when it comes to a group you are advocating for, but you would not for a moment advocate that the KKK be allowed to engage in hate speech. And you don't seem upset that there are laws requiring us to wear seatbelts in cars. It's just a matter of whose ox is being gored.

Now to clear up the issue of semantics. When I say "right to marry", it is intended to mean right to marry someone of the same sex. So most of the comments above regarding gays having the right to marry the opposite sex have absolutely no relevance.

They are not relevant to what you are want to achieve, but they are relevant to what you wrote.

If you intend to say that gays are denied their 'rights' to marry, it is necessary for us to point out that you are using a false claim. They DO have the right to marry just the same as everyone else does... and you don't deny that fact when it is put to you.

So, let's turn to what you really want to have--a new set of laws. Let's discuss that then with the baloney about "rights" and "same as other people" out of the way.

I personally could accept governmental contracts of some sort so that that living life with legal protections, as has been complained about, is made secure. That already exists, for the most part. What you asked for, however, is society's approval of gayness by approving gay unions, and also that "marriage" be the term used for them.

However, you are so sure of yourselves and refuse to accept that other people define marriage differently than you,

It's not we who are in the business of fiddling with the language in order to make something into what it is not. That was your purpose. We are not the ones who invented marriage; it has been what it is for ages. We have nothing to do with that, not any more than we made the shape of the earth or how people procreate.

No one has proved to me with any contrary evidence any of the many points I have made on these pages. I won't retype them but if you read, you will what I am referring to and that many of the issues i have raised have not been directly addressed.

If you are unconvinced by what you have read from us, then that's the way it is. We would have hoped that we could have reasoned with you effectively. We cannot control that, but we have shown an unbiased reader all that is necessary to have refuted your contentions and explained what is lacking in them. Either you consider them, or you don't. That's up to you.


You see, it is only a matter of time before democracy prevails and gays have the right to marry (members of the same sex). It is inevitable just as woman voting and slavery, etc. Discrimination is unacceptable in a democratic system.

If that comes to pass, then it does. However, that is democracy, the decision of a majority. Right now, the majority is not in favor of gay "marriage" and you don't care what the majority thinks. But if it goes your way, democracy is great, apparently. Whichever way, the vote of a majority is not a matter of "rights" as you were previously trying to say it is, just permission.

I ask that everyone stop trying to control people and allow people to exercise their free will when it does not impose on your own free will.

Who's saying gays must be prosecuted for being gay? No one here has said that, if I remember correctly. The problem is only that you want that situation proclaimed as being exactly the same in law as with married couples and deemed morally correct as well.

It is clear that legal recognition of SSM has no effect on your rights.

Again, you have not shown that the virtual elimination of marriage as it has always been known would, in fact, have no effect. You didn't even speak to the possibility. And there is quite a lot of evidence to the contrary.

Why must you point the finger?

On this thread, it is YOU who have pointed the finger, isn't it? From your first post forward, it was to criticise society and anyone who does not agree to your POV. You began by saying this: "I don't understand myself, but I have heard this expressed by Christains and other religious people. To me this kind of thinking is arrogant."

[Aibrean]

in God's eyes all sin is equal (except blaspheming the Holy Spirit which is unforgivable)...there are no levels of "better sin" or "worse sin" unless you think like a Mormon.

If he thought sin was ok we'd still be living in the Garden of Eden and Jesus would have never come down to earth.

On the subject of sin...so you eating an apple is ok...it's not sin, but when God said eating an apple is sin, then it is. Like everything in the Bible...if it is written that it is wrong, it's wrong. You can't sugar coat it or cover it up or try and take things out of context to make it sound better or to fit your life.

[nofreedom74]

I apologize that I haven't figured out how to reply with the boxes. I tried with no luck. I don't know where you got the idea that Christ accepted just anything. He did accept some people whom society scorned unfairly, but like his treatment of the woman at the well whom he told to "sin no more" he clearly discriminated between the person and the action. He also firmly said that the lukewarm would be rejected as well as all who were fornicators and unclean, etc. To say that Jesus accepted any and all under all circumstances is a popular debating tactic; it's just demonstrably untrue.

The fact is that Jesus was accepting in nature. I did not indicate that he was always accepting. I guess he wasn't perfect. This being the case, I would think those that follow him would generally be accepting in nature. I think this is more than reasonable and the cases of Jesus condemning people are few and far between. Your reasoning here is a poor argument in support of the the discrimination and non-acceptance of fellow humans and their choices. Jesus was about acceptance and I believe that was a good thing.

I doubt that very much. You say this when it comes to a group you are advocating for, but you would not for a moment advocate that the KKK be allowed to engage in hate speech. And you don't seem upset that there are laws requiring us to wear seatbelts in cars. It's just a matter of whose ox is being gored.

Although I never mentioned the KKK, I believe that the KKK has a right to engage in hate speech. As long as no threats are made, this is covered under freedom of speech. I also never mentioned anything about seatbelts. I don't think the government should tell a consenting adult what to do in this circumstance. So your assumptions are false. Please try again.

They are not relevant to what you are want to achieve, but they are relevant to what you wrote.

If you intend to say that gays are denied their 'rights' to marry, it is necessary for us to point out that you are using a false claim. They DO have the right to marry just the same as everyone else does... and you don't deny that fact when it is put to you.

Again - semantics. This should be understood when the topic is SSM. Come on now. I could see if it was off topic but this is the topic of discussion. Do you really think that me and other people think that gays aren't allowed to marry members of the opposite sex? This is common knowledge and to argue like this is not known is wasting mine and everyone else's time.

So, let's turn to what you really want to have--a new set of laws. Let's discuss that then with the baloney about "rights" and "same as other people" out of the way.

No. I want the current laws enforced properly and government to stop poking their nose where it doesn't belong. I believe the government is discriminating against gays (not affording them the same benefits of their hetero counterparts) on the basis of sexual orientation. This is a valid argument based on existing law.


I personally could accept governmental contracts of some sort so that that living life with legal protections, as has been complained about, is made secure. That already exists, for the most part. What you asked for, however, is society's approval of gayness by approving gay unions, and also that "marriage" be the term used for them.

I am not looking for society's approval of SSM although I would feel this would be a true sign of evolving human thought and an advance in human compassion. I would expect acceptance from such compassionate organizations such as religiouns, but go figure. A hetero agnostic like myself can find more compassion than people that claim to know god. I am however looking for legal recognition of SSM.

It's not we who are in the business of fiddling with the language in order to make something into what it is not. That was your purpose. We are not the ones who invented marriage; it has been what it is for ages. We have nothing to do with that, not any more than we made the shape of the earth or how people procreate.

You did not invent marriage but you are the one's that define it and or try to uphold the definition. To me, that is even worse than inventing it. The inventor can claim ignorance but the experienced user has no such outlet. To support such an antiquated definition from a uncivilized time to me is harmful and foolish.


If you are unconvinced by what you have read from us, then that's the way it is. We would have hoped that we could have reasoned with you effectively. We cannot control that, but we have shown an unbiased reader all that is necessary to have refuted your contentions and explained what is lacking in them. Either you consider them, or you don't. That's up to you.



If that comes to pass, then it does. However, that is democracy, the decision of a majority. Right now, the majority is not in favor of gay "marriage" and you don't care what the majority thinks. But if it goes your way, democracy is great, apparently. Whichever way, the vote of a majority is not a matter of "rights" as you were previously trying to say it is, just permission.

You see, that whole majority thing is bogus in regards to this as it is discrimination by definition. If the majority supported human sacrifice to the gods, would that make it OK? Certain rights need to be granted despite the majority opinion. I believe this is one of them. If marriage was outlawed all together, then that's one thing, but to discriminate based on sexual orientation is another.

Who's saying gays must be prosecuted for being gay? No one here has said that, if I remember correctly. The problem is only that you want that situation proclaimed as being exactly the same in law as with married couples and deemed morally correct as well.

They are not receiving the same benefits as their hetero counterparts as a result of the discriminatory interpretation of the law. Their orientation prevents them from marrying the opposite sex.

Again, you have not shown that the virtual elimination of marriage as it has always been known would, in fact, have no effect. You didn't even speak to the possibility. And there is quite a lot of evidence to the contrary.



On this thread, it is YOU who have pointed the finger, isn't it? From your first post forward, it was to criticise society and anyone who does not agree to your POV. You began by saying this: "I don't understand myself, but I have heard this expressed by Christains and other religious people. To me this kind of thinking is arrogant."
Oh yes I have. You see though, I am pointing the finger at the finger pointers. Didn't Jesus do this when they were about to stone Mary M? Well, I am doing this as you are denying people fair treatment.

[Albion]

The fact is that Jesus was accepting in nature. I did not indicate that he was always accepting.

Very well, then it is not shown that Jesus would approve of immorality. That was the point here. That argument doesn't work for you.

Although I never mentioned the KKK, I believe that the KKK has a right to engage in hate speech. As long as no threats are made, this is covered under freedom of speech. I also never mentioned anything about seatbelts. I don't think the government should tell a consenting adult what to do in this circumstance. So your assumptions are false.

OK. It was a guess, as I said. Most gay advocates are not like you, so you can appreciate my thinking.

Again - semantics.

Sorry, but you can't just always make a false statement and then when corrected pass it off as "semantics."

Do you really think that me and other people think that gays aren't allowed to marry members of the opposite sex?

I was just pointing out the falsity of your claim. Had you chosen to put your appeal fairly, of course, I would not have had to set the record straight before getting us to the real issue.

No. I want the current laws enforced properly and government to stop poking their nose where it doesn't belong.

Again, I doubt that and believe that it is something said for purposes of debate. If you want the current laws enforced, you'd be in favor of all the laws that restrict gay activities and "marriage" which you started out complaining are violations of someone's "rights." If the laws are violating your rights, they can't also be what you support.


I believe the government is discriminating against gays (not affording them the same benefits of their hetero counterparts)

...as I just pointed out.


You did not invent marriage

That is correct. For that reason, we are not making it something it is not.

You see, that whole majority thing is bogus in regards to this as it is discrimination by definition. If the majority supported human sacrifice to the gods, would that make it OK?

I agree with that, which is why I found it odd for you to appeal to democracy as the way of achieving what you are advocating. I guess what's against your rights on the one hand is perfectly fine, so long as what you are after is achieved. Since that is so, there's no point in you arguing your case on the basis of fairness or ethics.

On this thread, it is YOU who have pointed the finger, isn't it? From your first post forward, it was to criticise society and anyone who does not agree to your POV. You began by saying this: "I don't understand myself, but I have heard this expressed by Christains and other religious people. To me this kind of thinking is arrogant."

Oh yes I have. You see though, I am pointing the finger at the finger pointers. Didn't Jesus do this when they were about to stone Mary M? Well, I am doing this as you are denying people fair treatment.

I'm sorry, but the falseness of that claim can be seen by a glance at the first two posts. In the OP, there was no finger pointing. But you took the opportunity to point your finger, so it is you who made the post into an attack instead of a discussion.

[nofreedom74]

[quote]

Explaining this to you would be like explaining the heat of south Texas to an Eskimo. Unless you've felt it just doesn't make much sense. You can show me websites that claim errors in the bible and I can show you websites that refute it. This has been hashed to death in this website and in real life. I would suggest that you do some better research.

Nonsense. My questions are based around obtaining evidence from historical events. How do you "feel" evidence? I can understand better if you say you feel god but to say my factual based questions need to be felt is avoiding the question. When I ask a history expert a question, I expect reference to facts. My questions are pertaining to actual historical events regarding human beings' involvement with the bible. I think an Eskimo can understand heat of the south just as a Texan can understand snow and ice. This is because we have actual physical things we can demonstrate these things with - pictures, hot and cold experiences, video footage, written accounts, etc. Eskimos would find a hard time to be perplexed by a simple thing such as heat due to these reasons.

Again, SSM's are not natural. Homosexual intercourse is nothing but fornication. The parts are not designed to work together. Actually in one subset there are no parts to work together at all. :doh:

That is your opinion and it is a form of judging other people. Please prove SSM is not natural and please define "natural" in a way that can be uniformly accepted by all people.

And, what do you know about Jesus? How do you know that Jesus would have accepted SSMs or be tolerant? The scriptures are completely against it.

I know what the bible tells me from its limited and edited accounts. Jesus was accepting in nature and although he did not support the actions of Mary M, he did not condemn her and urged the non-condemnation and punishment of her. When did Jesus not accept a human being based on their actions? Please let me know of these biblical accounts as I am familiar with the bible to a degree and have never come across these. It sounds like you prefer that Jesus be non-accepting and persecutory in nature? Is this accurate?

I will continue to be against SSMs until the day I die. You believe that democracy will eventually "win" and SSMs will become like any other marriage. Well, I suggest that you keep voting for it because I will continue to vote against it. There, my vote will always cancel yours. Keep that in mind.:thumbsup:

That's fine that you will be against them but it would be Jesus like to not judge the people that desire them and to not impose your viewpoints on others. This is not christ like and against the fundamental aspects of democracy. Voting will have nothing to do with it as this is a matter of inherent rights. All people currently have the right to marry people of the opposite sex. This is in support of a hetero idealogy. A true democratic system would not limit this legal interpretation based on sexual orientation. To limit it to 1 orientation is discrimination by definition. Please do not discriminate. Thank you. :thumbsup:

[nofreedom74]

[quote]

Explaining this to you would be like explaining the heat of south Texas to an Eskimo. Unless you've felt it just doesn't make much sense. You can show me websites that claim errors in the bible and I can show you websites that refute it. This has been hashed to death in this website and in real life. I would suggest that you do some better research.

Nonsense. My questions are based around obtaining evidence from historical events. How do you "feel" evidence? I can understand better if you say you feel god but to say my factual based questions need to be felt is avoiding the question. When I ask a history expert a question, I expect reference to facts. My questions are pertaining to actual historical events regarding human beings' involvement with the bible. I think an Eskimo can understand heat of the south just as a Texan can understand snow and ice. This is because we have actual physical things we can demonstrate these things with - pictures, hot and cold experiences, video footage, written accounts, etc. Eskimos would find a hard time to be perplexed by a simple thing such as heat due to these reasons.

Again, SSM's are not natural. Homosexual intercourse is nothing but fornication. The parts are not designed to work together. Actually in one subset there are no parts to work together at all. :doh:

That is your opinion and it is a form of judging other people. Please prove SSM is not natural and please define "natural" in a way that can be uniformly accepted by all people.

And, what do you know about Jesus? How do you know that Jesus would have accepted SSMs or be tolerant? The scriptures are completely against it.

I know what the bible tells me from its limited and edited accounts. Jesus was accepting in nature and although he did not support the actions of Mary M, he did not condemn her and urged the non-condemnation and punishment of her. When did Jesus not accept a human being based on their actions? Please let me know of these biblical accounts as I am familiar with the bible to a degree and have never come across these. It sounds like you prefer that Jesus be non-accepting and persecutory in nature? Is this accurate?

I will continue to be against SSMs until the day I die. You believe that democracy will eventually "win" and SSMs will become like any other marriage. Well, I suggest that you keep voting for it because I will continue to vote against it. There, my vote will always cancel yours. Keep that in mind.:thumbsup:

That's fine that you will be against them but it would be Jesus like to not judge the people that desire them and to not impose your viewpoints on others. This is not christ like and against the fundamental aspects of democracy. Voting will have nothing to do with it as this is a matter of inherent rights. All people currently have the right to marry people of the opposite sex. This is in support of a hetero idealogy. A true democratic system would not limit this legal interpretation based on sexual orientation. To limit it to 1 orientation is discrimination by definition. Please do not discriminate. Thank you.

:thumbsup:

[nofreedom74]

Too many people try to sugar-coat the Bible so they can continually live in habitual sin and "justify themselves" through their twisted out-of-context interpretations.

It's one thing to believe SSM is sinful, it's another to prevent others to pursue their free will. Your god gave free will and gave people the ability to sin. With this there would be judgment by the creator. you want to condition these people and limit their will based on something that does not interfere with your life. i don't know where it says your god is in support of doing this. i thought he was to judge and god being so powerful has never taken away free will. Why do you want to?

Christians are not of this world. We do not need to accept the way society is because everyone else is. We should not play down people's blatant disrespect for God and the Bible.

Yes they are. I see them everyday and I see their words on this board. You should be tolerant and understanding of people and their actions just as Jesus was to Mary M. Again, one thing to be against an action, another thing to be against the person and their right to perform that action (when it does not effect your life).

On the subject of marriage...it is typical that when wedded the person marrying says "to which God has joined, let no man separate." (obviously in reference to Mark 10:9) To marry same-gender and say that is a slap in God's face in my opinion.


It's good to have an opinion, but let's allow other people be able to live their lives the way they want as long as it doesn't infringe on your's.

:amen:

[nofreedom74]

Very well, then it is not shown that Jesus would approve of immorality. That was the point here. That argument doesn't work for you.

Correct. Jesus never limited people's free will and never condemned anyone in this life based on their actions. The argument is sound and demonstrates that your actions are inconsistent with Jesus'. Jesus will hold you accountable for your actions when you die and never prevented people from sinning.

OK. It was a guess, as I said. Most gay advocates are not like you, so you can appreciate my thinking.

Yes, I imagine gay advocates might have inconsistent logic in regards to this.

Sorry, but you can't just always make a false statement and then when corrected pass it off as "semantics."

Yes I can. And, this is a dismissive response. I supported my approach and provided reasoning. You can at least comment on the points instead of disregarding them and not providing any reasoning.

I was just pointing out the falsity of your claim. Had you chosen to put your appeal fairly, of course, I would not have had to set the record straight before getting us to the real issue.

Again, please specify how you disagree in reference to the reasons I provided.

Again, I doubt that and believe that it is something said for purposes of debate. If you want the current laws enforced, you'd be in favor of all the laws that restrict gay activities and "marriage" which you started out complaining are violations of someone's "rights." If the laws are violating your rights, they can't also be what you support.

I say I want the current laws enforced because I believe the current laws are un-democratic and discriminatory which is not democratic in nature. My phrasing was taking a swipe at the government. So, to be clear, I am in favor of democracy (true democracy, not the one being practiced currently) and it's laws. I am in favor of democratic laws. The current laws regarding SSM are not democratic but yet the government claims to be democratic. Hopefully this helps you understand now why I phrase it in this way.


...as I just pointed out.




That is correct. For that reason, we are not making it something it is not.

Yes, you are trying to uphold an un democratic law that is old. Please refer to the statement about the inventor vs upholder. Your stance also doesn't seem to be christ-like in nature. Christ would preach but not punish or prevent sinful actions. He would hold sinners accountable on judgment day but gave free will so they could be fairly judged.

I agree with that, which is why I found it odd for you to appeal to democracy as the way of achieving what you are advocating. I guess what's against your rights on the one hand is perfectly fine, so long as what you are after is achieved. Since that is so, there's no point in you arguing your case on the basis of fairness or ethics.

I don't understand what you are saying here. I believe that the government should not interfere with what people want to do as long as it doesn't infringe on other's people's life.


I'm sorry, but the falseness of that claim can be seen by a glance at the first two posts. In the OP, there was no finger pointing. But you took the opportunity to point your finger, so it is you who made the post into an attack instead of a discussion.





I was finger pointing at claims made by many christians, although they weren't in this post (yet). I stated what the opinions were ones that I heard in the past and then finger pointed at these finger pointers I referred to. It just so happens that you have the viewpoint that I initially referred to in the first post. So, on this post I was the first finger pointer, but it was based on a initial finger pointer's opinion, one that is from the common anti SSM argument. So again, I am finger pointing at the finger pointer and should be easily understood and obvious from all the points I am making. Isn't it clear that I am criticizing people that are supporting discriminatory laws against other people? That is what my whole beef is. Let's get the record straight - I am for people living their own lives as long as it does not impose on mine. I am against people that do the opposite.
:doh:

[Albion]

I was finger pointing at claims made by many christians, although they weren't in this post (yet).

Exactly. So you have no ground to call any of us finger pointers. It was you, not we.

So, on this post I was the first finger pointer

Thank you.

Let's get the record straight - I am for people living their own lives as long as it does not impose on mine. I am against people that do the opposite.
:doh:

And I am for people being treated equally, not with some having privileges others don't have. That applies to gay unions, preferential hiring practices, governmental favoritism towards some religions over others, and tax policy, among other such inequities.

[nofreedom74]

[/color][/size][/size]

Exactly. So you have no ground to call any of us finger pointers. It was you, not we.

Please read the rest of my comments. Choosing one sentence of my explanation and ignoring the others pertaining to this is easy to do. I have a sound argument and reasoning that you have not addressed or commented on. I'd love to hear your thoughts but let's get real, my logic is sound and in the hopes of being proved right, I can see how you would not address the whole of my reasoning. If you are against SSM, then you are a finger pointer and you and others have CLEARLY echoed this point. Your denomination is against SSM and this is well known - I am criticizing the ones that criticize (you). If you are for SSM and I incorrectly made the assumption that you are not, then I am at fault. You clearly are against SSM in theory (fine) and practice (being intrusive) and likely the gay lifestyle. My whole thing is I am against your fingerpointing.

Thank you.

[size=4][color=red]

[SIZE=4]And I am for people being treated equally, not with some having privileges others don't have. That applies to gay unions, preferential hiring practices, governmental favoritism towards some religions over others, and tax policy, among other such inequities.

No you aren't. Some people can marry who they love while others can not. You support discrimination based on sexual orientation.


Now, it's odd how you didn't even bother to comment on all of my responses and now you are being selective. Why is that?

[Albion]

No you aren't. Some people can marry who they love while others can not.

Of course I am, but what about you--the self-proclaimed advocate of people marrying whomever they say they love, with no other restrictions. So are you in favor of polygamy and the end of laws against marrying one's children?

All of that fits under the mantle of what you claim is your complete tolerance. So are you as tolerant as you claim or not?

[nofreedom74]

[/color]

Of course I am, but what about you--the self-proclaimed advocate of people marrying whomever they say they love, with no other restrictions. So are you in favor of polygamy and the end of laws against marrying one's children?

All of that fits under the mantle of what you claim is your complete tolerance. So are you as tolerant as you claim or not?

Of course you are --based on what? Again, your comments to my responses are less and less. I suppose it's hard for you to fight sound logic and reason. It seems like you can't combat my logic and reasoning and now are becoming selective and even so not fully addressing all of my reasoning when you do so.

Again, heteros can marry who they love. Gays cannot marry who they love. The law supports only one of these notions but not the other. Laws that do not support SSMs are discrimination based on sexual orientation by DEFINITION. Let's not sugar coat your discriminatory opinion (which you don't delve into much detail and you instead criticize mine which is fine but what are really your thoughts as you seem to be holding back?) Admit it - you are in favor of discriminatory laws. No more sidestepping and avoiding. I have addressed every counter point fully every step of the way with detail.

Now back to polygamy- which is a poor attempt at finding inconsistency in my logic (you have already tried unsuccessfully with the KKK and seatbelt example). I have clearly addressed polygamy this in another post so when you go back and try to discount ALL I have to say, maybe you can see that also. But I will quote myself for your benefit:

"It is not my business if 2 consenting adults want legal recognition of their relationship. The issue however is complicated by the fact that there is a high risk of close relatives having impaired offspring. (technically, polygamic marriage is a different issue than polygamic sex) However, I digress to my original point that marriage can be different things to different people. At a fundamental level, a "marriage" is simply a legally binding agreement between 2 consenting adults surrounding their relationship. The agreement that constitutes the marriage as well as the "relationship" are very dynamic in nature. It is unfair and against your god's teachings to impose your beliefs on people. Why should your OPINION of what marriage should be be forced on others?"

And, I do not have complete tolerance as should be clearly evident. I have no tolerance for intolerance when it comes to the lifestyle choices of consenting adults (specifically when it does not impose on other people's rights). I am not going to judge 2 consensual siblings if they want legal recognition of their relationship. It is not my business to interfere in their life choices because it does not effect me or anyone else. However, the result of siblings having intercourse can effect someone else's life since there is strong scientific evidence (not sure if your denomination even respects science) that such actions can lead to seriously impaired offspring. Am I against them marrying? No. Am I against them procreating? Yes if it has medical implications on the baby.

It seems others have been unable to respond to my counter responses also. I can only speculate as to the reasons, but to all you others out there that I have counter responded to, I invite your detailed criticisms of my points - all of them preferably. I am not hard headed and am very open minded and take the time and care to think about what you have to say and to respond directly with much care to detail.

[Hentenza]

That's fine that you will be against them but it would be Jesus like to not judge the people that desire them and to not impose your viewpoints on others. This is not christ like and against the fundamental aspects of democracy. Voting will have nothing to do with it as this is a matter of inherent rights. All people currently have the right to marry people of the opposite sex. This is in support of a hetero idealogy. A true democratic system would not limit this legal interpretation based on sexual orientation. To limit it to 1 orientation is discrimination by definition. Please do not discriminate. Thank you. :thumbsup:

Colossians 1:28-29
28We proclaim him, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone perfect in Christ. 29To this end I labor, struggling with all his energy, which so powerfully works in me.

Romans 12:9
9Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good.


We, as Christians, are called to hate evil and admonish those doing evil. Homosexuality is not condone in the teachings of Christ, rather is plainly described as being evil. I will continue to fight evil just as Christ commanded it.
Furthermore, Christ commanded us to preach the gospel of goodness and to shake the dust of our sandals to those that refuse to listen.

There is no inherent right to commit sin. Those that live in sin will never see the kingdom of God and therefore, follow the evil ways of the dark one.

There is no procreation in homosexuality. It is not natural and contrary to the teachings of Christ. Christ admonished forcefully those that were sinning in His father's house and He would do the same thing when faced with this abomination. He will judge accordingly.

I the mean time, heterosexual marriage is the ONLY marriage created by God. So, I will continue to speak and vote against the abomination of SSMs.

[Albion]

Of course you are

Well, that's your opinion. I gave you the rundown, but since it fits your stereotypes to believe the worst about anyone who does not support gay "marriage" for any reason...and not to believe them when they explain their POV...who am I to think I could break through that with mere with facts?

[nofreedom74]

Colossians 1:28-29
28We proclaim him, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone perfect in Christ. 29To this end I labor, struggling with all his energy, which so powerfully works in me.

Romans 12:9
9Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good.

Gay love can be sincere or insincere just as hetero love. Prove that gay sex is evil. This may be difficult because I've read multiple philosophy books just on this topic. It really comes down to hate what you think or what you are told is evil. Also quoting a book by someone that never met Jesus and that had a "vision" really proves nothing to me. I think this vision he had was due to a psychosis or was drug induced. People have visions all the time so why is this guys the word of god? Well, because someone told you it was. To summarize I see no relevance in this quote and would prefer something written more recently than 2000 years ago by some half civilized dude that roamed the desert persecuting people.

We, as Christians, are called to hate evil and admonish those doing evil. Homosexuality is not condone in the teachings of Christ, rather is plainly described as being evil. I will continue to fight evil just as Christ commanded it.

OK then you agree that Christains are called to hate and admonish people based on their actions. At least someone has the guts to admit it. This is strange though because Jesus (your lord and savior) never expressed hatred toward anyone. Actually, as a matter of fact, he had a message of love. You quite frankly are twisted in saying your religion calls you to hate, regardless of what it is. As you will agree, Christ never petitioned the government to stop anything and never once tried to limit or control someone's actions. You are really demented to paint Jesus in this light. I will tell you this. You know evil only in reference to what your book tells you is evil. Why do you need a book to begin with to tell you this? Please follow the example of Christ and stop using his name to pursue a vendetta. You should be ashamed. And by the way, admonish does not mean to prevent someone from doing something. It means to tell them it is wrong - not prevent them like an arrogant bully from doing what they want.

Furthermore, Christ commanded us to preach the gospel of goodness and to shake the dust of our sandals to those that refuse to listen.

Exactly. That's more like it.

There is no inherent right to commit sin. Those that live in sin will never see the kingdom of God and therefore, follow the evil ways of the dark one.

There is a right to commit sin. There is something your god gave you called free will. Here is proof: You can go down the street and stab someone right now. This is enacting your inherent tight to sin. Those that live in sin may very well see the kingdom of god according to your own book. All that is required is to accept jesus as the way and the light. jesus was forgiving. So your entire statement is inconsistent with the book you claim to follow. I would think that if there was a heaven that those that sin terribly will go to "hell" because that would make sense. That is not what your book says though.

There is no procreation in homosexuality. It is not natural and contrary to the teachings of Christ. Christ admonished forcefully those that were sinning in His father's house and He would do the same thing when faced with this abomination. He will judge accordingly.

Bologne. This was because they turned his father's house into a mall and he lost control. He wasn't perfect all the time and this action was inconsistent with all other accounts of him. This is a poor example and frankly i'm surprised this poor example wasn't pathetically used earlier. The closest example the bible provides to our topic is with Mary Magdalene and you know what HE did in that situation. And by the way, I happened to agree with and respect Jesus' action in this circumstance. This is something you should model yourself after, not hatred.

I the mean time, heterosexual marriage is the ONLY marriage created by God. So, I will continue to speak and vote against the abomination of SSMs.

God did not create marriage. It is a man made custom that has made it's way into the legal system. And I will continue to speak out against the abomination of your discriminatory religion (or interpretation of). For being members of a loving religion, some of you people really scare me - seriously. All I hear you talk about is trying to control other people. Again, follow your Jesus' example and mind your own business. This experience is only one of the many reasons I have extreme contempt for religion. Not that I believe, but I wish jesus would come back just to set you people straight with your talk of hatred and admonition. What a travesty. Why can't you people mind your own business?

[Hentenza]

God did not create marriage. It is a man made custom that has made it's way into the legal system. And I will continue to speak out against the abomination of your discriminatory religion (or interpretation of). For being members of a loving religion, some of you people really scare me - seriously. All I hear you talk about is trying to control other people. Again, follow your Jesus' example and mind your own business. This experience is only one of the many reasons I have extreme contempt for religion. Not that I believe, but I wish jesus would come back just to set you people straight with your talk of hatred and admonition. What a travesty. Why can't you people mind your own business?

LOL!!! You come to this forum to spread your evil views and you dare call us names? You have not even done your homework, have you?
The travesty is that you actually believe all that junk your spewing. Dude, do some research before attempting to debate something that you know nothing about. You know very little about scripture and Jesus. You know nothing about us except what you have preconceived already. At the very least read the bible if you are going to argue against it. You have lost before you even started.^_^^_^

[Aibrean]

Hebews 13:4
Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.

[Albion]

What a travesty. Why can't you people mind your own business?

Well, no one here asked you to come onto our Christian forum and gratuitously spread your hatred for Christians and disdain for the Bible. If that is not deserving of a "Why can't you mind your own business?" nothing is, yet we were willing to discuss issues with you until you ran out of slogans and had to fall back upon name calling.

[Aibrean]

speaking of minding our own business this IS in the congregational forum thread for fundamentalism.

LOL :D

[lismore]

The part they do use was entirely designed for something else. ..

I would like to pick up on what kobuk said there.

The human body was not designed for homosexual marriage.

Who designed this body?

Colossians 1: 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.

Jesus created all things, he designed the body and designed marriage. Now what does Jesus say on the issue of marriage?

Matthew 19: 4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

God made them male and female for a marriage, not male and male. You cannot be a Christian and ignore what Jesus said:

Luke 6:

46"Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say? 47I will show you what he is like who comes to me and hears my words and puts them into practice. 48He is like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built. 49But the one who hears my words and does not put them into practice is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete."


:wave:

[Robiecancan]

The anus is designed specifically to disperse waste from the human body and nothing else. Just because you can put things in that area of the body doesnt mean you should. I can give a hundred examples of things that are easy to do but wise to do. When the gay rights people like the womans right to choose to murder her unborn baby lobiest discuss thier perversion they NEVER talk about the biology aspect. All this to say simply GOD who designed us says its wrong and an abomination to him when men and women have sex with the same gender. The same pride that got satan slung is at work in every human being who says God is wrong on this issue. Telling God he is wrong doesnt even sound right!!

[nofreedom74]

The anus is designed specifically to disperse waste from the human body and nothing else. Just because you can put things in that area of the body doesnt mean you should. I can give a hundred examples of things that are easy to do but wise to do. When the gay rights people like the womans right to choose to murder her unborn baby lobiest discuss thier perversion they NEVER talk about the biology aspect. All this to say simply GOD who designed us says its wrong and an abomination to him when men and women have sex with the same gender. The same pride that got satan slung is at work in every human being who says God is wrong on this issue. Telling God he is wrong doesnt even sound right!!

Thank you for the biology lesson. Please remember however that the mouth also disperses waste. As far as what the anus was designed for, that is nothing more than your opinion. I'm never called god wrong. I never referred to god. I referred to the god that you believe is referenced in a book (more of an edited compilation actually). You see, I don't believe you have much less insight into god than i do. Especially with the gentleman above saying that "we as christians are called to hate". My stance regarding that statement actually points out that this philosophy is strangelt contradictory to your own teachings.
Back to biology, i believe your opinion on what to use what for is clouded by your religious teachings and regardless is nothing more than an opinion not supported by fact. Which brings me to my main point: How does SSM affect you and why must you impair another's free will granted by god and democracy?

[nofreedom74]

Colossians 1:28-29
28We proclaim him, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone perfect in Christ. 29To this end I labor, struggling with all his energy, which so powerfully works in me.

Romans 12:9
9Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good.


We, as Christians, are called to hate evil and admonish those doing evil. Homosexuality is not condone in the teachings of Christ, rather is plainly described as being evil. I will continue to fight evil just as Christ commanded it.
Furthermore, Christ commanded us to preach the gospel of goodness and to shake the dust of our sandals to those that refuse to listen.

There is no inherent right to commit sin. Those that live in sin will never see the kingdom of God and therefore, follow the evil ways of the dark one.

There is no procreation in homosexuality. It is not natural and contrary to the teachings of Christ. Christ admonished forcefully those that were sinning in His father's house and He would do the same thing when faced with this abomination. He will judge accordingly.

I the mean time, heterosexual marriage is the ONLY marriage created by God. So, I will continue to speak and vote against the abomination of SSMs.

Wow - a religion that calls people to actually hate! Ok, let's say that Romans is a divine message. Where in this message is evil defined? Or will you now refer to a passage written by some other author not intended to be used for the purpose you are using it for. How about this----if you are so busy hating evil, how can you also cling to what is good? This seems to be a real challenge, much like the paradox from long ago. If god is all powerful, can he create something that he himself cannot lift? Well, the comparison is a little weak because in this case we are referring to the divine when in actually we are discussing human capabilities. So let's hate AND cling to what is good?
Where do you see the credibility in this "divine" message? Also, Jesus never seemed to tell people to do this.

Your interpretation of this religion is even scarier than the religion itself. As your book tells you to hate evil, how does this relate to admonishing people, and ultimately how does this lead to you actively preventing people from expressing themself?

Keep fighting evil my friend, I will continue to embrace and love the truth and the light

[nofreedom74]

[/color][/size]

Well, that's your opinion. I gave you the rundown, but since it fits your stereotypes to believe the worst about anyone who does not support gay "marriage" for any reason...and not to believe them when they explain their POV...who am I to think I could break through that with mere with facts?

far from stereotypes and catch phrases. I criticize the stance of opposition in regards to SSM, not the value of the person holding the opinion. This stance is discriminatory by definition, but you refuse to fit yourself into this category? Please read the definition of discrimination and then tell me what you call it when someone supports marrying someone you love if hetero but not if gay. This is discrimination based on sexual orientation by definition whether you claim it's in god's name or not. I call them how I see it but nonetheless do not support thinking the worst of someone because of this. This would be a warning to me though of the person's open mindedness and acceptance of other people's belief. I don't want to associate with people that want to control others.

[nofreedom74]

Hebews 13:4
Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.

My point exactly. God will judge, not us humans. But there is worse than judging going on---there is support and lobbying in favor of discriminatory laws.

[Hentenza]

[quote=nofreedom74;38795256] Wow - a religion that calls people to actually hate!
You obviously missed the part that said "cling to what is good". If you are going to argue then look at what is posted and don't proof read.

Ok, let's say that Romans is a divine message.
Yes, Romans is part of the NT.

Where in this message is evil defined?
All over the bible. Have you read it?

Or will you now refer to a passage written by some other author not intended to be used for the purpose you are using it for.
Romans was written by the apostle Paul. No other author has been quoted.

How about this----if you are so busy hating evil, how can you also cling to what is good?
No, I am busy making sure that evil does not win over good. So, I am clinging to what is good while fighting evil.


This seems to be a real challenge, much like the paradox from long ago. If god is all powerful, can he create something that he himself cannot lift?
Just like "how can God make a round square or a circle triangle". Logical fallacy.

Well, the comparison is a little weak because in this case we are referring to the divine when in actually we are discussing human capabilities. So let's hate AND cling to what is good?
Yes, the comparison is extremely weak. We do both, cling to what is good BY hating what is evil.

Where do you see the credibility in this "divine" message? Also, Jesus never seemed to tell people to do this.
I see it every where I look. The message is all around you. All you have to do is look. Jesus was not a pacifist, as a matter of fact, Paul words ARE the teachings of Jesus. But you would not know that because you have not read the bible yet.

Your interpretation of this religion is even scarier than the religion itself.
Really? Or is it your interpretation of Christianity just skewed.:doh:

As your book tells you to hate evil, how does this relate to admonishing people, and ultimately how does this lead to you actively preventing people from expressing themself?
Strawman. God made man to have free will so it follows that people CAN express themselves any way they want to. The crux is, is it right? Is it Godly? Or is it just a selfish expression.

Keep fighting evil my friend, I will continue to embrace and love the truth and the light
I will continue to fight evil, however, I would urge you to at the very least do your homework before debating something that it is obviously just an emotional ride for you.

[Albion]

far from stereotypes and catch phrases. I criticize the stance of opposition in regards to SSM, not the value of the person holding the opinion.

Well, I was just pointing to the sterotyping and catch phrases that made up most of your posts here on this thread. If you are a totally different person on another thread and in the rest of your life, of course I couldn't say.

[nofreedom74]

No one has explained to me yet after numerous requests where your bible tells you to prevent people from living their life when it does not impose on yours. I see where it says to tell them it is bad but don't see where it says to make laws to prevent them.

WHERE DOES IT SAY THIS????? WHERE???

and

HOW IS YOUR STANDPOINT NOT DISCRIMINATORY IN LIGHT OF WHAT I HAVE SAID MANY TIMES?

Keep sidestepping the issue and try answering the question.
I suppose those of you that condone this message of hate (admittedly) also believe that the only way to peace is thru war?

Also, to the person criticizing my knowledge of the bible: I know enough about the bible as they attempted to brainwash me as a child with this bologne. I don't care to study your book because I think it is inaccurate, altered, and makes many false claims regarding supernatural events that are not in any way proven by any factual evidence. The book is all over the place and most of the stories (they are just that--stories) were spread by word of mouth of a long period of time. All of this book was assembled into an agreed upon arrangement by people (some of which were not believers to begin with) with a political agenda many years after the fact. This stuff was intended to be a tool to control people and the sad part is that it works till this day.

Now, with that said, why would I want to study such a book? There are infinitely many more books that I can and do read that give insight into the truth. So, I do know enough that PAUL who wrote ROMANS never knew Jesus. How did he get his info abut Jesus? PAUL OF TARSUS was a mass murderer and it's shocking that you even take him seriously. I suppose that if OJ claims to have seen god that you will go and worship his words too? Also, please indicate where in romans that evil is specifically defined instead of asking me if i read the bible.

Pure lunacy. Show me some proof..some evidence like i have done. Please prove to me that you are not discriminatory and that your book calls you to prevent people from doing what they want.

[kobuk]

No one has explained to me yet after numerous requests where your bible tells you to prevent people from living their life when it does not impose on yours. I see where it says to tell them it is bad but don't see where it says to make laws to prevent them.

WHERE DOES IT SAY THIS????? WHERE???

and

HOW IS YOUR STANDPOINT NOT DISCRIMINATORY IN LIGHT OF WHAT I HAVE SAID MANY TIMES?.
I'll bite again. As an infinitely straight oriented person.

Let's keep to the title of your thread. accepting gay marriage (http://foru.ms/showthread.php?p=38824144#post38824144)

Simply put, i can't accept anything that contradicts Scripture. Hate the sin love the sinner.

I once drove a taxi cab. Many times as the driver i hosted both gays and lesbians. "Hate" was never once in my heart for these people. Quite the opposite actually. I began to feel their hurt souls. Most often they would sit very quietly in the back seat. Wondering i suppose, if the driver was going to say some snide remark to make their life even more drowned in suffering. No. I treated them well not just to get a good tip as their cab driver, but to put the situation in a more humane atmosphere. I applied some golden rule principle. Firm talk that's honest and without any attack posture.

Homosexuals share the world with us. We must accept them as human beings and afford them the common coutesy that's due all of us. As they travel. As they live. But i don't believe in granting additional rights to anyone for any reason based on sexual orientation. And i don't believe in upsetting the Created Order which is one man with one women in marriage.

I'll always vote according to my beliefs in any public decision making place like a voting booth.

The Bible teaches that this behavior that goes against the Created Order is sin. Where? Many places. A study of it is easy to carry on.

I'm not descriminating against any person. I'm being loyal to the Scripture. When i vote, where the chips fall is where they fall. Based on my biblical foundations. Also in my beliefs is to pray for and lead those troubled souls through the Gospel message to their salvation.

Where militant gays attack the rest of us, that's a matter of defending against a militancy that's trying to force another's will on us. You see that in the way they force their very lewd Gay Marches on our cities. Facilitated by corrpted public officials.

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57022

Injecting homosexuality on a culture is also used by those who for whatever reason are seeking to destroy that culture. This is the real source of most of the militance described above. That's why it's always so rediculously thrown into the face of the public. The typical gay person is actually a very quiet and very hurting individual who is suffering from a kot of major malfunctions. A study of the writings of former gays reveals the true reality of the lifestyle. We should all be mindful of the fact that but for the grace of Yah, there would we be also. Gay-ism is a Satanic attack upon mankind.

[nofreedom74]

I can respect this approach and opinion although you see I disagree with it from a legal perspective. I still feel the law is clearly discriminatory but your treatment of these people is admirable, respectable, and what should be expected by religious and/or moral people. You make no claims of hate and make no claims that your religion calls for you to impair these people's free will in any way. If everyone here expressed these views initially, I would not have much issue with anyone here. It must be hard for gay people as many people's comments disturb me and I'm straight! Some of your comments do bring me solace but can't agree with the Satanic attack as this seems very exaggerated and doesn't seem like a supportable notion. Why not consumerism, or the many other "evil" things of the world? The gay actions do not harm you so I don't see why you are calling it an attack.

[Aibrean]

"The gay actions do not harm you so I don't see why you are calling it an attack"

One moldy apple will ruin the bunch.

[nofreedom74]

"The gay actions do not harm you so I don't see why you are calling it an attack"

One moldy apple will ruin the bunch.

In this masterful rebuttle, I assume you are saying that we are already ruined or you are already ruined? Please explain how and in what way as I don't feel ruined in any way.

Are we all going to hell because one person sinned or is this just because one person had homosexual anal intercourse? Wouldn't this hold true to liars, thieves, etc or is this exclusive to homosexual activity???

I understand what the quote you provided means but have no idea what the relevance is to the discussion.
No one still has answered my above questions in caps by the way.

[nofreedom74]

AGAIN....Where does your bible tells you to prevent people from living their life when it does not impose on yours? I see where it says you should tell them it is bad but don't see where it says to make laws to prevent them. I understand where your bible says gay actions are wrong but don't see where it tells you to stop people from doing them and more specifically where does the bible tell you to force your definition of marriage or anything else for that matter on others?

WHERE DOES IT SAY THIS and WHY?

and

HOW IS YOUR STANDPOINT NOT DISCRIMINATORY IN LIGHT OF WHAT I HAVE SAID MANY TIMES?. How is it not discrimination when one consenting person can marry another consenting person whom they love while a person with just a different orientation cannot. I don't understand how this is not discrimination. You see these as catch phrases yet can't answer my question. Please look up the definition of discrimination and explain how my "catch phrases" are