Homosexuality & Gay Marriage
#1
Posted 08 April 2009 - 06:05 PM
tl;dr- gays exist, "god" dont care
Discuss.
#2
Posted 08 April 2009 - 06:07 PM
#3
Posted 08 April 2009 - 06:08 PM
#4
Posted 08 April 2009 - 06:17 PM
I don't have any moral issues with it, marriage is no longer considered a Christian ceremony these days, at least not exclusively. Vegas alone has demonstrated that.
#5
Posted 08 April 2009 - 07:27 PM
Caael, on Apr 9 2009, 01:05 AM, said:
tl;dr- gays exist, "god" dont care
Discuss.
Well not even going to go into how flawed that view is of God but whatever.
What I don't like about how Christians view gays is that a lot of American Christians are fundamentalists and believe every word of the Bible is the word of God and cannot seem to understand that it was written by man and has the flaws of man in it, it is also likely that those who wrote it put their own views into it. I mean the Bible and God in it say "Do not judge lest you be judged" (Don't know direct quote) and also that God loves all his creation etc but yet some exerts hate on homosexuals and all logic and reason is thrown out the window so some ignorant people who don't even understand their own religion can start an angry mob.
Not like I am religious myself I hate the idea of religion.
#6
Posted 08 April 2009 - 07:41 PM
On a practical note, I hate the concept that some people claim, that being gay, bisexual, or lesbian is a "choice". No one chooses to become a citizen with secondary rights and suffering from discrimination.
#7
Posted 08 April 2009 - 08:27 PM
Golden Legacy, on Apr 8 2009, 06:41 PM, said:
Holy crap, quoted for truth. Run for president.
#8
Posted 08 April 2009 - 11:05 PM
Caael, on Apr 8 2009, 05:05 PM, said:
tl;dr- gays exist, "god" dont care
Discuss.
"God" said no because the whole idea of sex was not for enjoyment, but for producing babies. And since gay couples can't physically bear children, then they shouldn't marry.
And don't tell me that they can just marry and not have sex because we all know they'll be banging each other as soon as they go on their honeymoon.
And the whole point of having a free will is not to just allow us to do as we please without consequence, it's to allow us to choose for ourselves whether to do right or wrong.
I could go into an ass-load more detail, but this is about gay marriage so I'll leave it at that.
[EDIT] And GL, Christianity doesn't teach people to hate others gay or otherwise. What they do preach, is to spread the word/etc. and to not be gay yourself. God doesn't hate gays, and neither do I. I just don't approve of their decision.
#9
Posted 08 April 2009 - 11:06 PM
Golden Legacy, on Apr 9 2009, 11:41 AM, said:
I think it is, BUT... to an extent.
When you live in a stigma-free society (like ours is slowly becoming) you're less likely to mentally suppress the idea of being attracted to someone of the same gender, so that mental option is more likely to remain open. It's why we've had this sudden wave of people coming out in the last decades, and why it was such a rare case until now.
#10
Posted 08 April 2009 - 11:10 PM
#13
Posted 08 April 2009 - 11:30 PM
Toasty, on Apr 9 2009, 01:05 AM, said:
And don't tell me that they can just marry and not have sex because we all know they'll be banging each other as soon as they go on their honeymoon.
And the whole point of having a free will is not to just allow us to do as we please without consequence, it's to allow us to choose for ourselves whether to do right or wrong.
I could go into an ass-load more detail, but this is about gay marriage so I'll leave it at that.
[EDIT] And GL, Christianity doesn't teach people to hate others gay or otherwise. What they do preach, is to spread the word/etc. and to not be gay yourself. God doesn't hate gays, and neither do I. I just don't approve of their decision.
Toasty, this is about both homosexuality and gay marriage, both of them are relevant.
And yes Toasty, I am aware of what Christianity preaches, myself being a follower of the Abrahamic faiths. Unfortunately, many people who are do try to spread hatred against them, or teaching (preaching?) that they are inherently 'disgusting' or 'wrong'.
Split Infinity, on Apr 9 2009, 01:06 AM, said:
When you live in a stigma-free society (like ours is slowly becoming) you're less likely to mentally suppress the idea of being attracted to someone of the same gender, so that mental option is more likely to remain open. It's why we've had this sudden wave of people coming out in the last decades, and why it was such a rare case until now.
This is a legitimate observation. I think your point deals more with people revealing themselves to be gay - which has increased in recent times - as opposed to homosexuality flat out being a modern phenomenon, which it is not (having been noted for millennia).
EDIT: And yes Legolastom, you are being a little rash in attacking the Bible. We should argue about the views people have, regardless of where they come from.
#14
Posted 08 April 2009 - 11:33 PM
Split Infinity, on Apr 8 2009, 10:06 PM, said:
When you live in a stigma-free society (like ours is slowly becoming) you're less likely to mentally suppress the idea of being attracted to someone of the same gender, so that mental option is more likely to remain open. It's why we've had this sudden wave of people coming out in the last decades, and why it was such a rare case until now.
People are coming out of the closet like it's a ****ing fad now.
EDIT: In fact, given my experience with the people at my school, I'm pretty sure homosexuality IS a fad to most of them.
#15
Posted 08 April 2009 - 11:35 PM
Legolastom, on Apr 8 2009, 10:10 PM, said:
Because man+man=/= babies. If you couldn't tell that from my post, then go get some reading glasses.
Golden Legacy, on Apr 8 2009, 10:30 PM, said:
And yes Toasty, I am aware of what Christianity preaches, myself being a follower of the Abrahamic faiths. Unfortunately, many people who are do try to spread hatred against them, or teaching (preaching?) that they are inherently 'disgusting' or 'wrong'.
Well I can't speak for Islam since I've never even been to a Masque (sp?), but I have yet to physically go to a church and hear gay hate messages being preached.
That's not to say that no Christian church does it, but I don't consider any that do to be real churches.
To be frank, I don't consider any church that spreads hatred about anything (besides the devil and whatnot) to be a christian church.
Split Infinity, on Apr 8 2009, 10:11 PM, said:
Seeing as most religions are anti-gay, I can't imagine that a significant number of gays are religious. To add on to that, the number of non-religious people who abstain are very few in number.
You do the math.
#16
Posted 08 April 2009 - 11:38 PM
Golden Legacy, on Apr 9 2009, 03:30 PM, said:
Well that's the crux of the debate, isn't it? We really can't know for sure whether it's because of their newfound tolerance, or whether people are allowing themselves to be converted, so to speak.
#18
Posted 08 April 2009 - 11:50 PM
#19
Posted 08 April 2009 - 11:55 PM
Legolastom, on Apr 8 2009, 10:49 PM, said:
No, numbnuts, Men and women are supposed to be able to produce babies. That's how things work. Being sterile is entirely different from man on man sex.
#21
Posted 09 April 2009 - 03:09 AM
Legolastom, on Apr 9 2009, 03:10 PM, said:
Because if we all rooted men then none of us would be here.
Legolastom, on Apr 9 2009, 03:49 PM, said:
From a Evolutionary point of view, yes.
I love it how people are allowed to express their views on religion, but religious people aren't allowed to express their views.
My opinions on the topic. I do not support Gay Marriage. I do not agree with Homosexuality. I do not believe that our sexual orientation is hard-wired into us. It annoys me that ******s want equal treatment and rights and all that but they intentionally alienate themselves from society.
And yes, my religion plays a part in my opinions, albeit a small part. If you seek something to criticise try my cultural upbringing, my blue collar work environment or my evolutionary instincts for a change.
On a side note, would a gay guy sleep with a girl that used to be a guy?
#22
Posted 09 April 2009 - 03:34 AM
So why exactly do you see it as wrong for someone to be attracted to their own gender? I mean, from a moral standpoint. You say that people like that are intentionally alienating themselves, but wouldn't you do the same if you were straight in a gay society? No way I'd try and conform to that.
#23
Posted 09 April 2009 - 05:55 AM
Split Infinity, on Apr 9 2009, 07:34 PM, said:
So why exactly do you see it as wrong for someone to be attracted to their own gender? I mean, from a moral standpoint. You say that people like that are intentionally alienating themselves, but wouldn't you do the same if you were straight in a gay society? No way I'd try and conform to that.
From a moral view? It isn't right, it goes against society, and while that necessarily doesn't make it bad, it also goes against our instincts, if everyone were gay then the human race would cease to exist.
Alienating is a bad word but it's all I could think off. A guy at work said it well but I can't remember how he phrased it, basically the gist was they want to be equal and have the same rights as everyone, but they talk in a manner which is an instant indicator of their sexual preference.
Also, anyone want to try and defend this?
In November 2008, the United States Postal Service delivered envelopes containing white powder to two LDS temples and a Catholic fraternity, prompting a hazardous materials response and a federal investigation. Although the FBI stated that there was no evidence linking the incidents to Proposition 8 opponents, news sources speculated that these were hate crimes directed at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and the Knights of Columbus for their support of Proposition 8. The white powder scares were reported on November 13, 2008 at Salt Lake City's Temple Square, the Los Angeles California Temple, and at a printing plant belonging to the Knights of Columbus (a Roman Catholic fraternity) in New Haven, Connecticut.[184][185]
Ten LDS church buildings in the Sacramento region and seven houses of worship in Utah were vandalized in the ten days following the November 4 election, more than expected for an entire year. The FBI is investigating whether civil rights charges can be brought against the perpetrators and whether the acts of vandalism are hate crimes.[186] At a Mormon church in Orangevale, vandals spray painted in red letters on the front sign and sidewalk: "No on 8" and "No on Prop 8".[187] On November 11, a Book of Mormon was burned on the doorstep of a Latter-Day Saint chapel in Littleton, Colorado, which is being investigated as a hate crime.[188] It was reported that yard signs supporting Prop. 8 were rearranged into the shape of swastika at a Roman Catholic church in Riverside.[183]
For people who want equality and tolerance, they have a funny way of showing it.
#24
Posted 09 April 2009 - 06:11 AM
watch, on Apr 9 2009, 09:55 PM, said:
I just want to point out that's a kneejerk argument that's obviously not going to happen, and honestly, we already have too many god damn people on the planet to begin with. Less reproduction can only be a good thing.
watch, on Apr 9 2009, 09:55 PM, said:
-copypasta-
For people who want equality and tolerance, they have a funny way of showing it.
You're starting to sound like the people who blamed all of Islam for 9/11.
#26
Posted 10 April 2009 - 07:31 PM
Sry if thats a run-on sent.
Can anyone explain what albiet/albeit means?
EDIT - this post is my first and I would like to dedicate it to SwedishFish.
lrn2google
-Someone Else
#27
Posted 10 April 2009 - 07:37 PM
Wiktionary said:
albeit (plural albethey)
Despite its being; although.
He has a very good idea, albeit a strange one.
#28
Posted 10 April 2009 - 07:47 PM
#30
Posted 10 April 2009 - 09:16 PM
#31
Posted 10 April 2009 - 09:33 PM
#32
Posted 10 April 2009 - 09:40 PM
#33
Posted 10 April 2009 - 11:42 PM
Some ass-hat liberal was spouting a bunch of nonsense earlier about how "there is no place for traditional morals in this day and age" or something like that.
Basically, he says underage sex, vandalism, rage, discrimination, and uncalled for hatred are all acceptable.
#34
Posted 10 April 2009 - 11:59 PM
Toasty, on Apr 11 2009, 03:42 PM, said:
And this is where religion jumps into it. There's absolutely no reason that a person with gay-tolerant beliefs should feel morally unjustified towards the gay population.
Murder, violence, discrimination; they're all universally condemned because they defy the basic model of human morality, to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. How does being gay step outside of that model? It's not hurting anyone, it's just a simple exertion of free will. That extends to gay marriage.
#36
Posted 11 April 2009 - 12:26 AM
Split Infinity, on Apr 10 2009, 10:59 PM, said:
Yeah, I was gonna say something like that.
You all say that gay dudes getting married is immoral. But honestly, I think the real evil here is taking away basic human rights. Taking away their right to marry is discrimination, segregation, it's immoral.
I had something else to say but I'm sleepy, so I forgot it... might post more later.
#37
Posted 11 April 2009 - 12:52 AM
I already explained somewhere why religious people (at least christians), consider homosexuality to be immoral.
#38
Posted 11 April 2009 - 12:55 AM
Toasty, on Apr 11 2009, 01:42 AM, said:
Some ass-hat liberal was spouting a bunch of nonsense earlier about how "there is no place for traditional morals in this day and age" or something like that.
Basically, he says underage sex, vandalism, rage, discrimination, and uncalled for hatred are all acceptable.
That's a bit of a huge step forward. You can't equate your dislike of 'liberalism' with automatic underage sex, vandalism, rage (lol), discrimination (?). I think what was being said is that morals and standards change over time - there was a time in history when a black person in chains would have been seen as perfectly acceptable, with little moral consequence.
watch, on Apr 11 2009, 02:15 AM, said:
This is probably meant as a response to my rhetorical question to DS', so I apologize on that front. To answer though, it honestly wouldn't make a difference to me really. Granted, this is coming from someone who went to a very open school, where heterosexual couples and homosexual couples were both prominent.
#39
Posted 11 April 2009 - 01:11 AM
Do it or don't, both groups should have that choice.
#40
Posted 11 April 2009 - 01:25 AM
Golden Legacy, on Apr 10 2009, 11:55 PM, said:
I'm not. The guy really said that, and he also happens to be a liberal. He honestly thinks that we don't need to teach our kids how to get along with others, or how to respect their elders, or any of that.
I suppose he could have meant something more along the lines of what you described, but it didn't seem like it to me from the tone and context he used it in.
#41
Posted 11 April 2009 - 01:29 PM
I'm sick of hearing "It's against my morals." First of all, there's a separation of church and state, and second of all, well what I said above.
I'm honestly convinced that many of these people who are "morally" against homosexuality, are just using the Bible to make their homophobia look justified. And it needs to stop, right now.
#43
Posted 11 April 2009 - 02:03 PM
Envy, on Apr 11 2009, 09:29 PM, said:
I'm sick of hearing "It's against my morals." First of all, there's a separation of church and state, and second of all, well what I said above.
I'm honestly convinced that many of these people who are "morally" against homosexuality, are just using the Bible to make their homophobia look justified. And it needs to stop, right now.
Lolwut? They changed the bible?
I know I'm pretty homophobic, I'm not proud of it, but yeah, gay people make me uncomfortable. But still, I haven't heard any good reason why gay marriage should be forbidden. It's perfectly justified to love another human, regardless what sex. they are.
But this is turning in a roundabout argument.
#46
Posted 11 April 2009 - 07:39 PM
Someone Else, on Apr 10 2009, 11:26 PM, said:
You all say that gay dudes getting married is immoral. But honestly, I think the real evil here is taking away basic human rights. Taking away their right to marry is discrimination, segregation, it's immoral.
I had something else to say but I'm sleepy, so I forgot it... might post more later.
Bestiality doesn't hurt anyone, and it's not evil. Who are we to judge what a person can love, right?
#48
Posted 11 April 2009 - 08:19 PM
Regret, on Apr 12 2009, 02:39 AM, said:
I think the law is there so that animal diseases don't get spread around humans and form more dangerous ones and also so that Animals don't get raped, because Animals cant report a rape. And if Animals had the intelligence of humans then it wouldn't be immoral to have sex with one, might be dangerous and impractical however.
#49
Posted 11 April 2009 - 08:24 PM
Legolastom, on Apr 11 2009, 07:19 PM, said:
Gay sex spreads AIDS.
#52
Posted 11 April 2009 - 09:27 PM
Envy, on Apr 12 2009, 05:29 AM, said:
I'm sick of hearing "It's against my morals." First of all, there's a separation of church and state, and second of all, well what I said above.
I'm honestly convinced that many of these people who are "morally" against homosexuality, are just using the Bible to make their homophobia look justified. And it needs to stop, right now.
Does it need to stop? Like right now?
Why does it need to stop? Why don't gay activists need to stop? Why are your views so much better then mine that mine should cease to exist?
Golden Legacy, on Apr 12 2009, 12:06 PM, said:
?
#53
Posted 11 April 2009 - 09:32 PM
watch, on Apr 11 2009, 11:27 PM, said:
Why does it need to stop? Why don't gay activists need to stop? Why are your views so much better then mine that mine should cease to exist?
?
Don`t waste your breath. I`ve been in the same situation with Toasty. If you ask questions that they know they can`t answer without seeming ridiculous, or just cant answer because it`s wrong, they`ll avoid said questions. They will work their sentences around the questions. They will not come right out and answer you question. For example; anybody here against gay marriage, how does it affect you in a negative way? There is no answer to that question becuase it doesn`t affect them in a negative way, therefore the anit-gay-marriagers will avoid or flat out just ignore the question.
EDIT- That link you posted GL; brilliant.
EDITEDIT-Okay, I realised you`re on the other side.. Okay, answer my question then. How does gay marriage affect you in a negative way, and therefore should stop?
#54
Posted 11 April 2009 - 09:42 PM
watch, on Apr 12 2009, 01:27 PM, said:
Why does it need to stop? Why don't gay activists need to stop? Why are your views so much better then mine that mine should cease to exist?
Allowing other people to live by their own beliefs doesn't mean you have to take those beliefs onto yourself. It just means you have to accept them, even if you don't support or agree with them whatsoever. People have been giving religious groups that same right for centuries.
#56
Posted 11 April 2009 - 11:34 PM
Envy, on Apr 11 2009, 12:29 PM, said:
If I was a homophobe, I wouldn't have anything to do with gay people and I'd probably hate them. But that's not true, and I've stated why I consider it to be morally wrong. So do some un-convincing.
As for the "separation of church and state," it was origionally meant by the founding fathers to prevent the state from controlling the church. It was never intended to prevent the church from having an influence on the state.
Regret, on Apr 11 2009, 07:24 PM, said:
Fixed to make a better point.
Drizzy Drake, on Apr 11 2009, 08:32 PM, said:
EDIT- That link you posted GL; brilliant.
EDITEDIT-Okay, I realised you`re on the other side.. Okay, answer my question then. How does gay marriage affect you in a negative way, and therefore should stop?
I'd say the reverse argument is true. Skidz, whenever I get into a religious debate with you, you refute absolutely ever logical thing I throw at you. And yes, religion does in fact have logic.
As for your second edit, it's just another thing that strays away from christian morals. The main difference between this and other things that stray from christian morals, is that this one can at least be somewhat contained/controlled.
You can claim separation of church and state or whatever, or claim that my statement is a religious hypocrisy or whatever the hell you want.
Point is: back when the majority of the American population went to church every Sunday, the only thing you had to worry about when you left your kid alone was the chance that he could hurt himself. Back then, there was no such thing as locks for your car because theft very rarely ever occurred. Heck, you didn't even have to lock the doors to your house. Back then, people respected their elders, got along with each other much better than they do now, and actually followed the law.
Case in point: Christian morals made America a better place. As time when on and people strayed away from them, things got worse.
Nowadays, kids are practically encouraged by the media to have sex and do drugs, and pretty much do whatever the hell they want without any regard for morals or the law.
I'll admit that homosexuality doesn't necessarily harm or kill people, but it's just another thing that strays away from common morals. Or at least, christian morals.
#57
Posted 11 April 2009 - 11:45 PM
EDIT-Qucik response. Why should everybody have the morals that the Christian faith put out for us? Isn`t religion a choice?
#58
Posted 12 April 2009 - 12:20 AM
Toasty, on Apr 12 2009, 06:34 AM, said:
As for the "separation of church and state," it was origionally meant by the founding fathers to prevent the state from controlling the church. It was never intended to prevent the church from having an influence on the state.
Fixed to make a better point.
I'd say the reverse argument is true. Skidz, whenever I get into a religious debate with you, you refute absolutely ever logical thing I throw at you. And yes, religion does in fact have logic.
As for your second edit, it's just another thing that strays away from christian morals. The main difference between this and other things that stray from christian morals, is that this one can at least be somewhat contained/controlled.
You can claim separation of church and state or whatever, or claim that my statement is a religious hypocrisy or whatever the hell you want.
Point is: back when the majority of the American population went to church every Sunday, the only thing you had to worry about when you left your kid alone was the chance that he could hurt himself. Back then, there was no such thing as locks for your car because theft very rarely ever occurred. Heck, you didn't even have to lock the doors to your house. Back then, people respected their elders, got along with each other much better than they do now, and actually followed the law.
Case in point: Christian morals made America a better place. As time when on and people strayed away from them, things got worse.
Nowadays, kids are practically encouraged by the media to have sex and do drugs, and pretty much do whatever the hell they want without any regard for morals or the law.
I'll admit that homosexuality doesn't necessarily harm or kill people, but it's just another thing that strays away from common morals. Or at least, christian morals.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Also it would be better if people didn't ****ing bread so much as even at our current population we wouldn't be able to sustain ourself on this planet for long, to to mention the fact in the next 50 years the population will be so much larger than now. But whatever I didn't come here to make a point or argue, just to laugh at Toasty.
#61
Posted 12 April 2009 - 01:01 AM
Regret, on Apr 12 2009, 05:22 AM, said:
It's just anal sex in general. Technically, a hetero couple can have anal sex if they wanted to. So it's not gay sex.
This seems like a good time to talk about www.godhatesfags.com
That's how pea-brained some christians are these days.
#62
Posted 12 April 2009 - 01:04 AM
Sir Walsingham, on Apr 12 2009, 12:01 AM, said:
This seems like a good time to talk about www.godhatesfags.com
That's how pea-brained some christians are these days.
Yeah, but Heterosexuals don't have to.
#63
Posted 12 April 2009 - 01:10 AM
Drizzy Drake, on Apr 11 2009, 10:45 PM, said:
EDIT-Qucik response. Why should everybody have the morals that the Christian faith put out for us? Isn`t religion a choice?
Religion is a choice. But if the majority of people still valued christian morals like they did 60 or 70 years ago, the world would be a better place. There is no doubt about that. There would be less crime, less hatred, less corruption, everything in general would be better. That is why everyone should follow christian values. The values that America just so happens to be founded upon.
Legolastom, on Apr 11 2009, 11:20 PM, said:
Also it would be better if people didn't ****ing bread so much as even at our current population we wouldn't be able to sustain ourself on this planet for long, to to mention the fact in the next 50 years the population will be so much larger than now. But whatever I didn't come here to make a point or argue, just to laugh at Toasty.
If you only came in to laugh, then don't post. At least show some respect to the people who are actually debating the topic.
#67
Posted 12 April 2009 - 01:57 AM
Nosferatu, on Apr 12 2009, 12:18 AM, said:
You go ahead and believe that. Out of all the trends involving crime and corruption, the strongest one is the one that compares it to the decline in moral values. Specifically, the decline in the number of people who believe in christian moral values.
Though I suppose you could have a different definition of what would be considered "better".
Sir Walsingham, on Apr 12 2009, 12:01 AM, said:
That's how pea-brained some christians are these days.
Key word there is "some".
I don't agree with people like those who created and support that website. Christianity doesn't preach hatred of any kind, and god certainly doesn't hate homosexuals.
#68
Posted 12 April 2009 - 02:31 AM
Toasty, on Apr 12 2009, 12:57 AM, said:
Though I suppose you could have a different definition of what would be considered "better".
Yeah, people who aren't completely narrow minded ****s.
Not pointing any fingers, of course.
#69
Posted 12 April 2009 - 02:37 AM
#73
Posted 12 April 2009 - 02:49 AM
Toasty, on Apr 12 2009, 01:44 AM, said:
And when do I ever participate in any of the topics other than to insult someone? It's kinda hard to listen to an opinion when you're just insulting them and leaving.
My jackassery (Is that even a word?) aside, I suggest
Edit: Urban dictionary says it is. Good enough for me.
#74
Posted 12 April 2009 - 03:02 AM
#75
Posted 12 April 2009 - 03:09 AM
Toasty, on Apr 12 2009, 05:10 PM, said:
Yes, Christian values brought the western world to where it is today, but that doesn't mean all of them are relevant to modern society; just the ones which have grounding in today's moral logic. I've said this before.
#76
Posted 12 April 2009 - 03:40 AM
#77
Posted 12 April 2009 - 04:21 AM
#78
Posted 12 April 2009 - 06:10 AM
#79
Posted 12 April 2009 - 08:02 AM
Toasty, on Apr 12 2009, 03:10 AM, said:
If you only came in to laugh, then don't post. At least show some respect to the people who are actually debating the topic.
Not American.
#80
Posted 12 April 2009 - 12:48 PM
#83
Posted 12 April 2009 - 10:47 PM
But that's a different arguement. *whistles, poofs away*
#86
Posted 13 April 2009 - 11:05 PM
#88
Posted 14 April 2009 - 01:45 AM
Drizzy Drake, on Apr 12 2009, 01:32 PM, said:
EDIT- That link you posted GL; brilliant.
EDITEDIT-Okay, I realised you`re on the other side.. Okay, answer my question then. How does gay marriage affect you in a negative way, and therefore should stop?
Don't take this as a flame but I've noticed that you seem to dodge direct questions as well.
Gay marriage doesn't affect in a negative way, if James and Ned in Alabama went and got hitched I wouldn't know or care, I just don't like that they want to call it marriage when it isn't. Go have a commitment ceremony or something.
Golden Legacy, on Apr 13 2009, 04:48 AM, said:
We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.
http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoi...contentLocale=0
Is there more a devout Christian church then The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?
Fury, on Apr 14 2009, 03:05 PM, said:
Echoing what Toasty said.
~!2600!~
#89
Posted 14 April 2009 - 03:20 AM
watch, on Apr 14 2009, 05:45 PM, said:
Marriage is a commitment ceremony.
#90
Posted 14 April 2009 - 04:57 AM
watch, on Apr 14 2009, 03:45 AM, said:
Gay marriage doesn't affect in a negative way, if James and Ned in Alabama went and got hitched I wouldn't know or care, I just don't like that they want to call it marriage when it isn't. Go have a commitment ceremony or something.
We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.
http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoi...contentLocale=0
Is there more a devout Christian church then The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?
Echoing what Toasty said.
Naw, I probably do, but in this case I beg to differ. The one main question I`ve wanted answering is how it negatively affects anybody if gays get married other than morals. I have been asked how it positively affects me, and I answered it directly.
#91
Posted 14 April 2009 - 06:19 AM
watch, on Apr 14 2009, 03:45 AM, said:
http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoi...contentLocale=0
Is there more a devout Christian church then The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?
You misinterpreted my point. I never said that only "devout" churches support gay marriage. In fact my point was the opposite - I said such churches DO exist alongside ones such as yours. If the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has that, then who is more 'devout' when it comes to one such as:
WHEREAS the Bible affirms and celebrates human expressions of love and partnership, calling
us to live out fully that gift of God in responsible, faithful, committed relationships that
recognize and respect the image of God in all people; and
WHEREAS the life and example of Jesus of Nazareth provides a model of radically inclusive
love and abundant welcome for all; ...
... THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED, that the Twenty-fifth General Synod of the United Church
of Christ affirms equal marriage rights for couples regardless of gender and declares that the
government should not interfere with couples regardless of gender who choose to marry and
share fully and equally in the rights, responsibilities and commitment of legally recognized
marriage;
United Church of Christ, http://www.ucc.org/l...statements.html
#92
Posted 14 April 2009 - 08:05 AM
Regret, on Apr 12 2009, 02:39 AM, said:
There's so much wrong with that sentence...
a) Beastiality is technically rape, seeing as animals cannot give spoken or written consent so basically you're raping the poor thing
b) Inter-species sex is just wrong as a human penis might be too big/too small for the animal which could cause discomfort, somebody might have to restrain the animal to keep it from getting away. In one case where a woman had sex with a horse, the horse penis ruptured her intestines and killed her because it was so large.
c) Animals (including humans) were not MEANT to reproduce with animals from another species. Otherwise we'd have flying gorillas, elephants that live in the sea etc etc.
There's so much more wrong with it, but the fact that you're actually comparing homosexuality to raping animals sickens me.
#93
Posted 14 April 2009 - 05:16 PM
Doesn't make it wrong though.
#94
Posted 14 April 2009 - 08:53 PM
ON Topic - I would think that you would have to limit that to a single denomination because with all those differences between christian beliefs could also cause problems. with ireland/northern ireland(not sure where exactly its/it goin down)
I supose you could argue that if they were true christians they would settle their differences with maturity but i guess im a little to....oh dang lost the word, umm help me out guys its kinda like a cynic/skeptic....um i think edgar allen poe was one. possibly the antonym of a transcendentalism
#96
Posted 14 April 2009 - 09:43 PM
Mo Cappy Ton, on Apr 14 2009, 07:53 PM, said:
ON Topic - I would think that you would have to limit that to a single denomination because with all those differences between christian beliefs could also cause problems. with ireland/northern ireland(not sure where exactly its/it goin down)
I supose you could argue that if they were true christians they would settle their differences with maturity but i guess im a little to....oh dang lost the word, umm help me out guys its kinda like a cynic/skeptic....um i think edgar allen poe was one. possibly the antonym of a transcendentalism
First off, props for a creative imagination.
Second off, by "christian beliefs/morals" I'm talking about the basic Judaio-Christian beliefs.
i.e. love thy neighbor as thyself, do unto others as you would have done unto you, keep your body pure (no drugs or alcohol abuse. They drank wine in the bible, so a little alcohol now and then is obviously not out of the question), no premarital sex, etc. etc. etc.
Basically, I'm saying that if non-believers at least folowed the five commandments that don't directly involve worshiping God, we;d have a much better society. The other five commandments are things like 'thou shalt not worship other gods" which obviously wouldn't apply to non-Christians (well, form a christian point of view they would, but you get the picture).
Those 5 commandments promote peace and shun hatred and violence, and to my knowledge are also fairly uniform among all christian denominations.
can't help you with the last word there though.
#97
Posted 15 April 2009 - 01:10 AM
Also you are obviously trying to say that non Christians (Or "non believers" as you call them lol) cause the problems in society, when funnily enough what? 90% of Americans are Christian? Then again I must lol.
Of course if that wasn't what you were trying to imply then I must apologise but, it seems like that is what your saying to me.
#98
Posted 15 April 2009 - 01:31 AM
What I said is what christian teachings promote, but just because the teachings promote them doesn't mean everyone follows them. "Christian" or not.
And I used quotation marks there because a lot of people will say that they're christians without even following many of the christian teachings.
As for 90% of Americans being Christian, I could only hope. Unfortunately, it's not quite that much. I don't know the statistic however.
#99
Posted 15 April 2009 - 11:31 AM
#103
Posted 16 April 2009 - 04:21 AM
gay marriage doesnt give a shit what religion thinks
and besides everyone knows the only buttsex allowed in Christianity is between priests and little boys
#105
Posted 16 April 2009 - 07:04 PM
#108
Posted 17 April 2009 - 04:16 PM
#109
Posted 17 April 2009 - 07:35 PM
tl;dr: It's a culture thing.
#110
Posted 20 April 2009 - 09:44 PM
#111
Posted 20 April 2009 - 10:31 PM
Basically: gays should go get married in Vegas
#112
Posted 21 April 2009 - 05:24 AM
#114
Posted 22 April 2009 - 07:42 AM
kate, on Apr 21 2009, 07:24 AM, said:
Because we`re smart. And of course, that...
#115
Posted 25 April 2009 - 11:14 AM
Toasty, on Apr 9 2009, 12:35 AM, said:
Why does that matter? In fact, in the world currently being overpopulated, isn't that a positive thing? Also, that can mean parents for children in orphanages. Also, technology has allowed gay couples to have children through surrogacy.
watch, on Apr 9 2009, 06:55 AM, said:
(long thing about the vandalism)
The human race wouldn't cease to exist if everyone was gay (And it's not like that's really an issue since not everyone is gay). Surrogacy would allow the human race to continue. Perhaps it goes against your instincts, but it obviously doesn't go against the instincts of those who are gay. It goes against society? What does that even mean?
watch, on Apr 11 2009, 01:15 AM, said:
Yes actually.
Regret, on Apr 11 2009, 09:24 PM, said:
No more than straight sex. If gay couples use condoms, they'll be fine.
Toasty, on Apr 12 2009, 02:10 AM, said:
America was founded on a freedom of religion, not on Christianity. As for your statement, there are parts of the bible that say you should be able to sell your children... If people followed teh part of the bible that said 'help thy neighbor' then the world would be a better place, but if people followed ALL parts of the bible the world would be a worse place. For me, people should all be allowed to their own interpretation
of the bible. Believing in the good morals of the bible doesn't mean you have to be anti-gay or aganist gay marriage.
I have no idea if I'll want to marry one day. All I know is that it would be awful if I didnt have the choice to marry. Wouldn't you be upset if your friends were allowed to marry and you knew you never would be able to. Shouldn't anyone be able to marry someone they love? I guess thats what no arguement has ever been able to convince me of? I shouldn't be able to label my love of someone as marriage because...
- me and my husband can't produce children without technology? what do children have to do with marriage? Plenty of straight couples don't procreate.
- God says its wrong? The bible was written by man. If God does exist, what proof is there that he hates gays or doesn't want us to marry?
- being gay is immoral? I didn't choose to be gay. I didn't know that something I can't control that doesn't change my personality can be immoral.
#117
Posted 25 April 2009 - 07:04 PM
My god thank goodness there's still some christians in this world to go around telling people that they're better than everyone, or I don't know what we'd come to if everyone were just tolerant. What a dystopian future that would be.
k I'm done raging now...sorry to be hating on one group more than others, because I know not all christians are like that, but some ignorant comments just get me.
If we're really basing whether it should be legal on whether it's immoral or goes against society or not (because that's the only arguement I can find that doesn't have to do with the church) then my point is kinda made for me.
What coz said about it not being a choice and therefore not immoral doesn't quite cover it because the same thing could be said about killers or pedophilia. Some things that are genetic or deeply rooted in someone's mind doesn't necessarily mean they're not immoral. It's the fact that being gay is about love just as much as being straight. There's basically no difference, especially with surrogates as coz said. The truth is you think it's immoral because it's different, because it's the minority. If most people were gay you'd be saying the same thing about straight people. Unless you're basing your thoughts about the matter on religion, in which case see above to know what I think about that.
As for it going against society, have you been to a high school lately? The biggest trend is being gay, or pseudo gay, or effeminate, or bi. Which means, if it's not already, when these kids graduate they will be society. So you have that to look forward to :(
#118
Posted 25 April 2009 - 08:41 PM
killercoz, on Apr 25 2009, 10:14 AM, said:
of the bible. Believing in the good morals of the bible doesn't mean you have to be anti-gay or aganist gay marriage.
First off, go read up on your American history. America was founded upon christian morals. The freedom to choose your religion was just part of the constitution. Over all, when America was first formed, it was largely and by far a christian-believing nation.
Show me the passage in the bible that says it's alright to sell your children.
And how can you say the world would be worse off if it followed all parts of the bible, if you've barely ever read it (if you've even read it at all)?
And you're right, believing those morals doesn't mean that. However, believing in christian teachings does.
#119
Posted 25 April 2009 - 09:57 PM
Toasty, on Apr 25 2009, 09:41 PM, said:
Show me the passage in the bible that says it's alright to sell your children.
And how can you say the world would be worse off if it followed all parts of the bible, if you've barely ever read it (if you've even read it at all)?
And you're right, believing those morals doesn't mean that. However, believing in christian teachings does.
First off, please do not insult my intelligence. I tried to not do that in my post and if i did I apologize. My opinion on this matter doesn't mke me take personal jabs at you so I feel you should do the same. Furthermore I never said that there weren't a lot of Christians just that you didn't have to me Christian.
Secondly, When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
Because the bible should be open to interpretation, people should be able to ignore the above passage as out of date. Similarly, people should regard the only a man and woman yshould marry as out of date as well.
#120
Posted 25 April 2009 - 10:47 PM
killercoz, on Apr 25 2009, 08:57 PM, said:
Secondly, When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
Because the bible should be open to interpretation, people should be able to ignore the above passage as out of date. Similarly, people should regard the only a man and woman yshould marry as out of date as well.
I didn't mean to insult your intelligence, but I hate it when people make accusations without being properly informed.
Also, back then slaves weren't necessarily in the same boat as the slaves in early America.
Slavery back then didn't mean being whipped/etc. The term "slave" in that passage doesn't mean the same thing that it does today. Obviously, if you're a slave, you're still owned by someone. But that just means that the person who owns you is in charge of you, and you have to do as he says.
That passage, along with the six verses before it we're put there as guidelines to prevent the mistreatment of slaves.
Back then, whether a slave was payed or not was up to their owner. But they were still given a place to stay, and food to eat.
It was like being an employee. Just with fewer freedoms.
And to all of those who will claim that I'm just blindly defending my religion, go read a history book. Specifically, about middle-eastern slavery during and before the time of African slavery in the US.
In that area during that time, even slaves had their own slaves, and some slaves were even rich and wealthy. Others had fairly high positions in government.
The term "slavery" meant something completely different back than than it does now.
#121
Posted 26 April 2009 - 01:00 AM
#122
Posted 26 April 2009 - 05:27 AM
Toasty, on Apr 26 2009, 03:41 AM, said:
And you're right, believing those morals doesn't mean that. However, believing in christian teachings does.
And the world would also be a lot better if people followed the Qur'an (Not sure about the spelling), Torah as well as the holy books of most other religions. Right Toasty? It would also be better if the whole world was communist. Right Toasty?
Also Toasty what about the part of the Bible that says your Children should be stoned to death if they are disobedient?
#123
Posted 26 April 2009 - 02:52 PM
Toasty, on Apr 25 2009, 09:41 PM, said:
I did
Toasty, on Apr 25 2009, 11:47 PM, said:
Also, back then slaves weren't necessarily in the same boat as the slaves in early America.
Slavery back then didn't mean being whipped/etc. The term "slave" in that passage doesn't mean the same thing that it does today. Obviously, if you're a slave, you're still owned by someone. But that just means that the person who owns you is in charge of you, and you have to do as he says.
That passage, along with the six verses before it we're put there as guidelines to prevent the mistreatment of slaves.
Back then, whether a slave was payed or not was up to their owner. But they were still given a place to stay, and food to eat.
It was like being an employee. Just with fewer freedoms.
And to all of those who will claim that I'm just blindly defending my religion, go read a history book. Specifically, about middle-eastern slavery during and before the time of African slavery in the US.
In that area during that time, even slaves had their own slaves, and some slaves were even rich and wealthy. Others had fairly high positions in government.
The term "slavery" meant something completely different back than than it does now.
And now your changing what you asked for. You're saying that slavery is okay? The first two lines are When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. I'm not sure how selling your daughter for the duration of her life is like being an employee. My point is- with the changing of time things become out-of-date. People shouldn't be able to sell their daughters and marriage just shouldn't be a man and woman only. Can you please rewrite some of your non religous debates as I would like a chance to debate those as well?
#125
Posted 26 April 2009 - 06:45 PM
Legolastom, on Apr 26 2009, 04:27 AM, said:
Also Toasty what about the part of the Bible that says your Children should be stoned to death if they are disobedient?
The Qu'ran (sp?) and all those other holy books aren't a part of the christian religion, so no, I can't say that the world would be a better place if everyone followed their teachings. Mostly because I've never read them.
Show me the passage in the bible where it says you should stone your children, because most people often interpret the bible in the wrong way. Chances are, it means that disobedient children should be punished. What sense would it make for the bible to tell people not to kill, and then command them to stone their disobedient children to death?
#126
Posted 26 April 2009 - 06:51 PM
#127
Posted 26 April 2009 - 06:58 PM
The bible doesn't really support slavery, I believe, but it doesn't condemn it. It just puts guidelines around it to prevent its abuse. Like forcing people to become slaves, and then mistreating those slaves.
#128
Posted 26 April 2009 - 07:06 PM
#129
Posted 26 April 2009 - 07:12 PM
But, still, while some things should be interpreted differently in a different era, others shouldn't.
#130
Posted 26 April 2009 - 07:32 PM
tl;dr Christianity is inconsistant. Bible is highly flawed.
#132
Posted 26 April 2009 - 09:42 PM
Toasty, on Apr 26 2009, 11:34 PM, said:
Skidz, just wondering, but have you ever read the bible?
Depends, I suppose. Since slavery nowadays is a taboo, and pretty much any attempt at it in this day and age would result in it's abuse, I'd have to say no, though. YOU said that. Slavery was perfectly acceptable a hundred years ago, and if asked then you would have said justified it because the bible says so, but now that it's tabboo in real life to own slaves you spin it by saying that the bible must be interpreted differently in different eras. Oh no wait, you even saved your ass on that front saying that some things should be viewed differently, and some shouldn't, that way no matter what you're argueing you can just pick what it should be. Damn, you're smart Toasty. If I ever have to win over Obama on why black people are evil and should be exterminated from this planet, I'ma call you Toasty. When I need to stand in front of the world and tell them that aliens are real and that they look like Ewoks and eat your brains, be sure that I will contact you Toasty.
Yes.
#133
Posted 26 April 2009 - 09:50 PM
#134
Posted 26 April 2009 - 10:05 PM
Toasty, on Apr 26 2009, 08:12 PM, said:
But, still, while some things should be interpreted differently in a different era, others shouldn't.
So in it no longer being acceptable for thsi time period, doesn't that mean that other verses can be applied as well? Such as teh one about marriage being only between a man and a woman...
On a side note, can Skidz stop arguing for the pro same sex side? Hes making us all seem like we ramble and talk out of our asses as he does.
#135
Posted 26 April 2009 - 10:40 PM
Golden Legacy, on Apr 26 2009, 11:50 PM, said:
Religion bashing aside, my point in that rant is perfectly relevant. Basically Toasty, at what point do the inconsistencies and ability to change everything to fit your viewpoint get old? And how can you sit here and defend said inconsistencies?
And whatever you say Coz. No, Toasty, you`re right, fuck faggots. God intended us to stick our dicks in nice tight vaginas, not gross male ass. So so immoral. You will burn coz, you will burn. God curses you and your orientation, for it is evil and is the temptation of the devil.
#136
Posted 26 April 2009 - 10:49 PM
Drizzy Drake, on Apr 26 2009, 11:40 PM, said:
Before I respond to this trash, I would like to compliment Toasty for being civil in his arguement and not resorting to the bull**** above. I don't believe it is the temptation of the devil as most people aren't tempted to be gay. Next off, I don't intend on going to heaven or hell so I don't believe I'll burn. Though discussed in a disgusting manners, in a way your second sentence has some truth. Our species was designed so that we need a male and female to reproduce, but not necessarily to love.
#137
Posted 26 April 2009 - 11:11 PM
#138
Posted 26 April 2009 - 11:35 PM
#139
Posted 27 April 2009 - 12:13 AM
I am gay myself, I admit it. And the people that know me that I've told, they don't give a damn.
But here is a question to consider, for everyone of you that denounces gays and gay marrage, that say that by two men loving eachother, living together, having sex, that all of that is wrong, how many of you look at lesbain porn? Strictly speaking, everyone one of you that does, acodring to the bible, yu would be going to hell, so why the hell do you worry about what other people feel or think.
Frankly, I don't care if you hate me for being gay. I really don't even care what your view on the matter is, as long as you express it with tact, and show respect toward those with varrying view points, and not go calling gays ***s or ******s. That term is vulgar and disgusting, and twisted from its truth. Get it through your heads people, a ****** is a bundle of sticks.
#140
Posted 27 April 2009 - 12:28 AM
killercoz, on Apr 26 2009, 09:05 PM, said:
No, because slavery and marriage are two different things. That, and people are actually still getting married nowadays.
And Skidz, how much of the Bible have you read?
[EDIT] Figured I should adress some of this:
Drizzy Drake, on Apr 26 2009, 08:42 PM, said:
Just thought I'd remind you that the definition of slavery back then was different from what is now, and because of that, I would justify it. Not because the bible says so.
You really need to quit treating "religious wackos" like they're brainwashed or only do things because the bible says so, because that's not true.
I have my own mind, and if the bible told me to do something I thought was morally wrong (like stoning my child), I'd take a step back and read the verse in context to see what it really meant, instead of blindly doing exactly what it said.
The bible often uses exaggerated examples to prove a point. Some people take them word for word, and some take them to be exaggerated examples.
#141
Posted 27 April 2009 - 01:12 AM
Edit: I understand why you personally can't support gay marriage, but if we ignore religion, do you feel its wrong still?
#142
Posted 27 April 2009 - 02:11 AM
#144
Posted 27 April 2009 - 04:28 AM
killercoz, on Apr 27 2009, 09:12 AM, said:
Edit: I understand why you personally can't support gay marriage, but if we ignore religion, do you feel its wrong still?
Well, the whole matrimony is pretty big in religion. Vice versa as well, religion is a big thing in matrimony. So if you ignore religion in this discussion, you're ignoring a major factor, thus it won't be able to prove anything.
I can perfectly understand why a church wouldn't want to marry two men. It's in contrast with their beliefs and values on marriage as a religion.
#145
Posted 27 April 2009 - 05:25 AM
#147
Posted 27 April 2009 - 08:52 AM
Toasty, on Apr 27 2009, 01:45 AM, said:
killercoz, on Apr 27 2009, 06:35 AM, said:
#148
Posted 27 April 2009 - 11:50 AM
killercoz, on Apr 26 2009, 09:49 PM, said:
Ah, but what is love?
#149
Posted 27 April 2009 - 01:49 PM
Laharl, on Apr 27 2009, 06:57 AM, said:
Anyone who uses the word F*ggot must have some hatred for homosexuals.
Caael, on Apr 27 2009, 09:52 AM, said:
No, the word 'kike' would have to be used.
Regret, on Apr 27 2009, 12:50 PM, said:
A deep caring for another. It can be found both in heterosexuals and homosexuals.
#150
Posted 27 April 2009 - 05:42 PM
Toasty - I have gathered that you do not believe gays should be able to marry. Correct so far?
- I am just wondering why not? is it because you believe in the bible and the bible said that is not what God intended for humans?
I am unable to change my tone while typing and what not so I want everyone to know this is without any condescendence, A-holeism, or hating
EDIT - I would also like to console Toasty on keeping his cool thoughout this discussion
#152
Posted 27 April 2009 - 10:33 PM
But I've never used it to discriminate against someone (that I can remember at least), gay or straight. Certainly not gay though. I haven't actually come across too many gay people, and I have yet to come across one that pissed me off.
Caael, on Apr 27 2009, 07:52 AM, said:
I never said extreme christian. Infact, if you payed attention, I never said that everyone should be a christian in the first (though that wouldn't be bad either imo).
What I did say, was that the world would be a better place if everyone followed five of the ten commandments (I now know this to be the last six commandments, as I forgot one).
All of them promote a safer, less angry environment without even requiring that you do anything explicitly christian. You don't have to go to church, you don't have to believe in god, and unless you follow a religion where beating people up or otherwise doing "evil" or illegal things, then following those commandments won't even infringe on your beliefs.
They are:
Honor your father and mother (I know some parents are horrible, but generally speaking this is a good rule to follow)
Don't murder
Don't commit adultery
Don't steal
Don't give false testimony (don't lie)
And don't covet anything that others possess
Another rule which is preached in the bible, but isn't in the ten commandments, is to "keep your body holy" (no drugs, don't abuse alcohol, etc.).
If everyone followed those simple rules, the world would, undoubtedly, be a better place. If not a bit more boring for some people. Denying that statement is a pretty foolish thing to do.
killercoz, on Apr 27 2009, 12:12 AM, said:
Edit: I understand why you personally can't support gay marriage, but if we ignore religion, do you feel its wrong still?
Watch answered your first question fairly well, I believe.
As for the second one, I can't say that I do. Reilgion aside, I just don't see same-sex relationships as natural. I mean, each part of the human body has a specific purpose, and the anus wasn't meant to receive anything. Sex aside, I still don't think it's right because, well, it just doesn't seem right to me.
I don't hate gays, and I won't discriminate against them (guys, shut up about the whole "you're discriminating by opposing gay marriage"), but I also won't support their decision.
Also, I missed this:
Drizzy Drake, on Apr 26 2009, 09:40 PM, said:
And whatever you say Coz. No, Toasty, you`re right, fuck faggots. God intended us to stick our dicks in nice tight vaginas, not gross male ass. So so immoral. You will burn coz, you will burn. God curses you and your orientation, for it is evil and is the temptation of the devil.
The only inconsistencies I see are those that arise from not actually knowing what the bible is trying to say.
Many would call the passage in the bible that Coz referenced hypocritical, as it seems to support slavery.
The thing is, it never said "go get yourself a slave! They're goooood stuff!" It only put guidelines around slavery.
But more importantly, the slavery it was talking about is entirely different from the slavery that many people immiediately think of today.
You can clear up a lot of the inconsistencies simply by reading up on history. The rest can be cleared up after you mature and understand a few things better than you did when you were a teenager or young adult. Simply because you'll see things through different eyes.
As for your other statement, Coz didn't get after you because he thought you were anti-gay (that's the impression I got at least). He said what he said because you made a pretty immature comment. It doesn't matter whether you were on his side or not, you aren't exactly helping him make a point by throwing mud that doesn't even prove a point. It only attempts to make me out to be a bad guy.
If you want to make a point, then do it without acting like my 5 year old cousin.
#153
Posted 27 April 2009 - 10:38 PM
What will you do if your child turns out to be gay?
#154
Posted 27 April 2009 - 11:12 PM
Also, I probably wouldn't let his boyfriend into the house. Dunno.
Either way, you can probably guess that I hope it won't happen.
#156
Posted 28 April 2009 - 05:05 AM
Just I've yet to see anyone in this topic make a valid argument against same-sex marriage that wasn't rooted in it being wrong in God's eyes.
Could be because 99% of the people in this topic think it's fine. Which brings up an interesting point; if so many people think it's fine, why isn't it legal? Does the church really have that much of a hold over the american government? Hasn't it been put to vote before?
#158
Posted 28 April 2009 - 07:34 AM
Split Infinity, on Apr 27 2009, 10:25 PM, said:
But whenever using a hate word something else is implied about your views whether yoiu mean to or not.
Toasty, on Apr 27 2009, 11:33 PM, said:
But I've never used it to discriminate against someone (that I can remember at least), gay or straight. Certainly not gay though. I haven't actually come across too many gay people, and I have yet to come across one that pissed me off.
I never said extreme christian. Infact, if you payed attention, I never said that everyone should be a christian in the first (though that wouldn't be bad either imo).
What I did say, was that the world would be a better place if everyone followed five of the ten commandments (I now know this to be the last six commandments, as I forgot one).
All of them promote a safer, less angry environment without even requiring that you do anything explicitly christian. You don't have to go to church, you don't have to believe in god, and unless you follow a religion where beating people up or otherwise doing "evil" or illegal things, then following those commandments won't even infringe on your beliefs.
They are:
Honor your father and mother (I know some parents are horrible, but generally speaking this is a good rule to follow)
Don't murder
Don't commit adultery
Don't steal
Don't give false testimony (don't lie)
And don't covet anything that others possess
Another rule which is preached in the bible, but isn't in the ten commandments, is to "keep your body holy" (no drugs, don't abuse alcohol, etc.).
If everyone followed those simple rules, the world would, undoubtedly, be a better place. If not a bit more boring for some people. Denying that statement is a pretty foolish thing to do.
Watch answered your first question fairly well, I believe.
As for the second one, I can't say that I do. Reilgion aside, I just don't see same-sex relationships as natural. I mean, each part of the human body has a specific purpose, and the anus wasn't meant to receive anything. Sex aside, I still don't think it's right because, well, it just doesn't seem right to me.
I don't hate gays, and I won't discriminate against them (guys, shut up about the whole "you're discriminating by opposing gay marriage"), but I also won't support their decision.
Also, I missed this:
The only inconsistencies I see are those that arise from not actually knowing what the bible is trying to say.
Many would call the passage in the bible that Coz referenced hypocritical, as it seems to support slavery.
The thing is, it never said "go get yourself a slave! They're goooood stuff!" It only put guidelines around slavery.
But more importantly, the slavery it was talking about is entirely different from the slavery that many people immiediately think of today.
You can clear up a lot of the inconsistencies simply by reading up on history. The rest can be cleared up after you mature and understand a few things better than you did when you were a teenager or young adult. Simply because you'll see things through different eyes.
As for your other statement, Coz didn't get after you because he thought you were anti-gay (that's the impression I got at least). He said what he said because you made a pretty immature comment. It doesn't matter whether you were on his side or not, you aren't exactly helping him make a point by throwing mud that doesn't even prove a point. It only attempts to make me out to be a bad guy.
If you want to make a point, then do it without acting like my 5 year old cousin.
- Yes, if people followed those 6 rules the world would be a better place, its the following of the whole bible that bothers me
- What watch said- are yous aying that if it was legal you would be okay with it?
- I know its basically impossible to eliminate a great part of your reasoning and still have a view.
- Last paragraph and seperate sentence- exactly
#159
Posted 28 April 2009 - 07:38 AM
kate, on Apr 28 2009, 12:05 PM, said:
Wasn't it put to the vote recently?
#160
Posted 28 April 2009 - 09:55 AM
kate, on Apr 28 2009, 01:05 PM, said:
Just I've yet to see anyone in this topic make a valid argument against same-sex marriage that wasn't rooted in it being wrong in God's eyes.
Could be because 99% of the people in this topic think it's fine. Which brings up an interesting point; if so many people think it's fine, why isn't it legal? Does the church really have that much of a hold over the american government? Hasn't it been put to vote before?
It's a conspiracy, obviously... :P
Yeah.... no. Too be honest, I find the 'sex is too reproduce, thus being strictly for being between men and women' argument a lot better than pro-gay arguments that have been presented.
As for my stance on gay marriage, it should be tolerated, not per se legalised. It's only a juridical difference, in real life it really doesn't matter. But it's one of those compromises both sides can be happy with.
#161
Posted 28 April 2009 - 03:23 PM
killercoz, on Apr 28 2009, 11:34 PM, said:
Yeah. That you hate someone. >_>
Sir Walsingham, on Apr 29 2009, 01:55 AM, said:
If people were happy with gay marriage being a crime we wouldn't be having this discussion. I'd hardly call that a compromise anyway, considering that the church hasn't actually lost out on anything.
#162
Posted 28 April 2009 - 03:34 PM
Sir Walsingham, on Apr 28 2009, 04:55 PM, said:
Yeah.... no. Too be honest, I find the 'sex is too reproduce, thus being strictly for being between men and women' argument a lot better than pro-gay arguments that have been presented.
As for my stance on gay marriage, it should be tolerated, not per se legalised. It's only a juridical difference, in real life it really doesn't matter. But it's one of those compromises both sides can be happy with.
Yeah but reproduction now takes a back seat to pleasure which to most people is the main reason for sex, so the arguement is pretty much invalid.
#163
Posted 28 April 2009 - 04:49 PM
No. Having sex for a reason other than reproduction is not against the law. It is only frowned upon by the church. Once again, church should be separate from state.
So saying that the "sex for reproduction, not pleasure" argument is better than any pro-gay one, is not logical. I said there were no arguments against it that weren't rooted in religion. Sex for reproduction is rooted in religion (see above). So I'm still waiting for a non christian argument against it.
And if it were put to the vote and the majority said it should stay illegal, then they're hypocrites given how many of them have sex without the purpose of makin' babies. Unless they have other reasons than God for keeping it illegal in which case I WOULD LOVE TO FREAKIN HEAR WHY.
no more running around in circles. it's dumb. also hypocrites go to the lowest level of hell, so...y'know...double jeopardy
#164
Posted 28 April 2009 - 05:26 PM
kate, on Apr 28 2009, 11:49 PM, said:
No. Having sex for a reason other than reproduction is not against the law. It is only frowned upon by the church. Once again, church should be separate from state.
Sounds like you interpreted my post the wrong way. Read again.
#165
Posted 28 April 2009 - 06:17 PM
I'd probably avoid this confusion if I weren't too lazy to use the quote button
#166
Posted 28 April 2009 - 06:54 PM
Religiously, sex was made for reproduction, and the pleasure gained from it is "a gift from god that should not be abused."
It's pretty obvious what the results of sex abuse are.
kate, on Apr 28 2009, 04:05 AM, said:
Just I've yet to see anyone in this topic make a valid argument against same-sex marriage that wasn't rooted in it being wrong in God's eyes.
Could be because 99% of the people in this topic think it's fine. Which brings up an interesting point; if so many people think it's fine, why isn't it legal? Does the church really have that much of a hold over the american government? Hasn't it been put to vote before?
No, I wouldn't be. That's why I'd pray about it. Like I said, confronting him directly would more than likely fail miserably. Therefor, from a religious point of view, the next best option is to just pray about it.
#167
Posted 28 April 2009 - 06:58 PM
#168
Posted 28 April 2009 - 07:34 PM
#169
Posted 28 April 2009 - 09:01 PM
#170
Posted 28 April 2009 - 10:33 PM
One main reason why I'm against gay marriage, is because it opens the doors for other marital related changes.
Some gay people somewhere (can't remember where exactly, but I'm pretty sure it was in a state that legalized gay marriage) thought that since gays could get married, then why couldn't people have more than one wife/husband? Why can't brothers marry their sisters? Why can't uncles marry their nieces? Why can't fathers marry their daughters? And other things like that.
I'm opposed to gay marriage because it goes against my religion, sure, but I'm also against it because it then makes people think, "hey, if gay people can get married now, then I/[insert person] should be able to marry [insert person/thing here]!" and other things like that. I believe that the bible so strictly prohibits romantic relationships outside of "boy meets girl" because it can lead to some pretty bad stuff. Just as the abuse of sex, alcohol, and a number of other things can lead down bad roads.
And generally, I also don't think it's natural to have any other relationship than the man/woman variety.
#171
Posted 28 April 2009 - 10:37 PM
Golden Legacy, on Apr 28 2009, 08:58 PM, said:
this can also sorta tie in gay adoption too. In my view, whose busines is it to say that two men, or two women, that love eachother and are generally good people, as in don't drink or do drugs, whether they would make good parents. Is it right to deny a gay couple the right to adopt a child just because they are gay, even if they would make perfectly good parents, feed the kid, teach the kid, protect the kid as any parents would, yet most adopiton places that I know of, or at least hear about, won't allow gays to adopt. Perhaps the only fear they, the adoption people or the religious people that rant about it, have, is that by being raised by a same sex couple, the child will grow up to be gay too. Who gives a ****. And it's mostly a big deal with men, women can just get a doner and not worry about it. Or maybe the fear is, if two gay guys adopt a kid, that they'll molest him or her. its BS.
sorry for getting off topic there.
#172
Posted 28 April 2009 - 10:50 PM
I'll give you that not all straight couples fit the profile either, but naturally, having both a male and female in the relationship, they have an upper hand.
But I'll also give you that whether the proper figureheads are there or not isn't always the case in those situations.
#173
Posted 28 April 2009 - 11:01 PM
but there you go. Excellent non-religious point. touche.
#174
Posted 29 April 2009 - 12:13 AM
Not to mention that it would exponentially increase the rate at which AIDS would be contracted. The more people that a single person has sex with, the higher chance they have of contracting and spreading the virus.
If everyone only ever had sex with one other person, AIDS would be nearly non-existent.
Anyway, I can see how it wouldn't necessarily be a good thing for the church to have some influence over government, as it effectively puts control into the hands of a few instead of the hands of many.
However, probably the most effective way to preserve morals would be to give the church more influence.
So there's benefits to both sides, depending on how you look at it.
#175
Posted 29 April 2009 - 01:00 AM
kate, on Apr 29 2009, 12:49 AM, said:
No. Having sex for a reason other than reproduction is not against the law. It is only frowned upon by the church. Once again, church should be separate from state.
So saying that the "sex for reproduction, not pleasure" argument is better than any pro-gay one, is not logical. I said there were no arguments against it that weren't rooted in religion. Sex for reproduction is rooted in religion (see above). So I'm still waiting for a non christian argument against it.
Biologically yes. The fact that humankind gave sex a pleasure purpose is an unicum as far as nature is concerned. Toasty said something alike, but that was kind of ignored.
kate, on Apr 29 2009, 07:01 AM, said:
but there you go. Excellent non-religious point. touche.
That's one of things that bothers me. Half of the time it seems like being gay is just a passing fad. True that the ancient Greeks already had gay sex, but nowadays it's more of a political hype instead of a sincere political agenda. Back in ancient Greece it wasn't a political/social issue at all. "Just do what you like, as long as it's willing from both sides, we'll tolerate it."
That said, Miss California has great boobs that compensated for a terrible answer.
#177
Posted 29 April 2009 - 05:03 AM
#183
Posted 30 April 2009 - 10:43 AM
Toasty, on Apr 29 2009, 12:33 AM, said:
Some gay people somewhere (can't remember where exactly, but I'm pretty sure it was in a state that legalized gay marriage) thought that since gays could get married, then why couldn't people have more than one wife/husband? Why can't brothers marry their sisters? Why can't uncles marry their nieces? Why can't fathers marry their daughters? And other things like that.
I'm opposed to gay marriage because it goes against my religion, sure, but I'm also against it because it then makes people think, "hey, if gay people can get married now, then I/[insert person] should be able to marry [insert person/thing here]!" and other things like that. I believe that the bible so strictly prohibits romantic relationships outside of "boy meets girl" because it can lead to some pretty bad stuff. Just as the abuse of sex, alcohol, and a number of other things can lead down bad roads.
This is almost a repeat of the same argument used when the ban on interracial marriage was first lifted. Ardent opposition to allowing whites and blacks marrying also believed it would "open the door" for incest and bestiality and other acts.
This is a classic example of a slippery slope logical fallacy.
#184
Posted 30 April 2009 - 01:56 PM
Golden Legacy, on Apr 30 2009, 09:43 AM, said:
This is a classic example of a slippery slope logical fallacy.
Well, now we're letting gays get married. So it has kind of carried out...
#185
Posted 30 April 2009 - 02:00 PM
#186
Posted 30 April 2009 - 03:35 PM
#191
Posted 04 May 2009 - 12:37 PM
#193
Posted 04 May 2009 - 08:29 PM
http://photos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs018.snc1/2204_26792813487190594_7724_n.jpg
#194
Posted 04 May 2009 - 08:35 PM
@ GL: So true.
#195
Posted 05 May 2009 - 12:07 AM
And yes, the biblical debate is the only way you can oppose it, and sorry but I think it's terribly flawed. We're very accepting of many religions and cultures and people so why must the concept of marriage remain the same as in the bible?
#196
Posted 05 May 2009 - 01:22 AM
Neon, on May 5 2009, 04:07 PM, said:
I wouldn't say Australian Culture is supportive of Homosexuality.
#198
Posted 05 May 2009 - 03:33 AM
It's just my view on the different places I've lived in Australia, on a similar note though people view Australia as a tolerant, anti-racist country, when it's the opposite.
#199
Posted 05 May 2009 - 04:57 AM
Maybe I'm just sheltered. >.>
#200
Posted 05 May 2009 - 05:42 AM
@ GL: So true.