If you are against gay marriage, you are a bad Christian.

[Yuuna_Kashiwagi]

What am I, invisible? Aren't you going to address my statements?

[chaos_anima_27]

AciDSniperF

What am I, invisible? Aren't you going to address my statements?

Sorry, I didn't see it.

[Yuuna_Kashiwagi]

Son of Krypton

AciDSniperF

What am I, invisible? Aren't you going to address my statements?

Sorry, I didn't see it.

I see, for a second there I thought there may have been some kind of orthodox Christian conspiracy to collectively place me on all of their ignore lists.

[PoeticVengeance]

Son of Krypton

SoundDoctrine

Son of Krypton

I may not agree with the issue of gay marriage, but I see the issue of divorce to be a far more pressing concern to me.

Well, since divorce isn't the issue at hand, could you expand on why you do not agree with the issue of gay marriage?

Ok, I'll see what I can do, though I haven't heard exactly what it would entail in great detail.

I believe that the actual act of homosexuality is wrong, because it takes place outside of the current boundaries of marriage. I refuse to get into the discussion of whether God doesn't like homosexuals or not, becauswe I believe he loves everyone, and Fred Phelps out at that psycho church in Kansas is probably headed to hell faster than the gays he hates. But I digress.

The institution of marriage has been around longer than any other institution in history, before religion, and certainly before any type of government. The anthropological record has many examples of male-female pairing for life for protection, companionship, and the good old roll in the hay every once and again. I don't know if they found any evidence of same-sex pairings, but if they did, they didn't last more than one generation, simply because of the biological implications of being unable to reproduce.

Personally, I don't understand the mentality if a homosexual individual, simply because I'm not one, and I can't understand what I'm not very well. But I do know they want companionship, and either a biological function, or maybe some kind of psychological episode occurred at a young age, and now they find the same sex attractive for some reason.

I feel same-sex marriage could be very damaging to the family because it affects so many different things in culture. It could teach that the traditional gender roles of a father and mother are unnecessary, forone. I've also heard people compare it to interracial marriages and things of that nature. However, racism is about keeping races apart, whereas marriage is about bringing people together. In addition, they've done studies of interracial children and single-sex household children, and while interracial children have little problems adjusting to "normal" life, children raised with two mothers or fathers have a considerable harder time about it.

Could you link these studies?

Because the APA has studies that say the exact opposite of that.

[PoeticVengeance]

Son of Krypton

SoundDoctrine

Son of Krypton

SoundDoctrine

Son of Krypton

I may not agree with the issue of gay marriage, but I see the issue of divorce to be a far more pressing concern to me.

Well, since divorce isn't the issue at hand, could you expand on why you do not agree with the issue of gay marriage?

Ok, I'll see what I can do, though I haven't heard exactly what it would entail in great detail.

I believe that the actual act of homosexuality is wrong, because it takes place outside of the current boundaries of marriage.

What are the current boundaries of marriage and why do these boundaries exist?
Can you prove that these boundaries are necessary?

I've been of the understanding that marriage was to take one wife or husband and love, care for, and honor them until one of you dies.In primitive cultures it was probably like finding a companion to raise offspring and then simply staying with them.

I think the boundaries are necessary because is same-sex marriage is allowed, who's to say what next type of relationship could fall under the umbrella. There could be people that want to marry farm animals, appliances, and a while host of other things, and if these were to all be allowed, society as we know it could collapse. I'm not saying it will, just that it's a possibility.

The slippery slope arguement is pretty fallacious for the following reasons:

In human history, it has been shown that each group that recieves rights, fights just as hard to deny rights to the other groups that are still being discriminated against.

A more recent example are black people, who still show large amounts of homophobia within their population and a strong adversion to homosexual rights.

Homosexuals will be unlikely to aid and more likely to stand in the way of zooaphiles, *****, and others in their quests for the ability to marry the other of their interest.

But on to the reasons why marriage can and should be denied to people that wish to marry appliances, animals and children.

Because these reasons are different from the reasons to deny marriage to homosexuals, the slippery slope doesn't apply well at all.

Object based marriage is foolish to the extreme. Marriage requires consent, and objects can't offer consent.

The rights given by marriage are also virtually useless to an object marriage, as things like seeing your wife in the hospital despite privacy laws, and being allowed to recieve certain protections regarded split ups are completely pointless for them.

You own a household object. So privacy laws don't affect you. If you fall out of love with the object, you throw it away. You don't need divorce laws to protect you.

Marriage to animals is outlawed because animals can not consent. Same with children. So, since consent can not be gained, marriage is not levied to protect the animal or child from abuse, as sex can and often does occur within marriage.

Now, homosexual marriage is prevented because of two reasons, and two reasons only: Religious/traditional reason, i.e. people are used to marriage being between a man and a woman, because either their religion says so, or the traditions they are used to says so. And because of the slippery slope reason.

The slippery slope reason is fallacious, and negated.

Now, none of the other reasons are tradition based. All of them are logical rational reasons, why people shouldn't marry objects, children and animals.

So due to the difference in reasons, the slippery slope is inapplicable.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

The institution of marriage has been around longer than any other institution in history, before religion, and certainly before any type of government. The anthropological record has many examples of male-female pairing for life for protection, companionship, and the good old roll in the hay every once and again. I don't know if they found any evidence of same-sex pairings, but if they did, they didn't last more than one generation, simply because of the biological implications of being unable to reproduce.

But in today's day and age, why does any of that even matter? Why can't a homosexual person marry the person they love? With our current population, is reproduction even a big deal?

Good question, why does it matter? I don't understand why people get divorced and then claim something like "Irreconcilable differences" or some other lame excuse.

The unfortunate thing is that people get married way to fast and don't get to know the person too.

Also most people don't realize that love == work. It isn't all roses and butterflies, you will have spats and fights and feel pissed at each other. Love involves so much of just working to be together, and is characterized by that work and dedication.

If anything straight people are ******** up marriage, because they're taking it for granted and getting these horribly unrealistic views of it and love.

Quote:

Why couldn't I be free to marry two women if I wanted to? The definition of love has been so skewered, especially over the last century, that it more means lust than anything else. Sure, there are many examples of the old kind, but those are slowly going out of the picture. Love has so many meanings that people forget what kind they are actually feeling. For instance, the term "Puppy love" is also infatuation, namely, attraction on a mostly physical scale. Most young couples that have sex before marriage fall into this category, because the saying once went, "Puppy love feels real to the puppy," andf they either lack the self-control, or simply don'tcare about anything but satisfying the beast they just let themselves go.

Generally marriage is a heavy commitment (or should be). With that level of commitment, jealousy is almost garaunteed, as the two people need to love each other strongly for it to be that kind of commitment.

So polygamy is dangerous. To all involved, especially the children.

If jealousy and rivalry shows up, it will cause infighting and tear the family apart. And breaking a family that a child is used to, is not good for it at all.

Quote:

And as for reproduction, yes our population is growing almost exponentially, but there is an imbalance in gender in many places, often through government programs (See: China's One child rule), which will lead to problems, especially if many men compete for the affections of few women.

Our population is high enough that it isn't a problem now. And won't be for a long time.

But many homosexuals do want to be parents, and quite a few children are abandoned into the adoption system.

These homosexuals can raise these kids to become valuable to society and self sufficient, making them as important to society (possibly more) then the two straight people that had sex and left the kids behind.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

I feel same-sex marriage could be very damaging to the family because it affects so many different things in culture.

But if we as a whole were more accepting to homosexuals, wouldn't any negatives you would find that they bring about in our culture dissipate?
Like, right now there's a lot of intolerance and bigotry towards homosexuals, and one would obviously find this a negative. But I personally do not find it a negative towards the homosexual, but towards the society.
Homosexuals need to be granted their rights and society needs to be more accpeting.
Perhaps when they are accepted, the bad things society puts on them will go away.

Perhaps, but there's also a lot of intolerance towards Christians, with the negatives coming down somewhere in the middle. Christians have done a mediocre to awful job of showing the love of Christ to people, with many not showing any love at all. But society hasn't been very forgiving, particularly with the advent of political correctness, and the removal of God from the public square. But I digress.

The reason God is out of the public square is a good one.

It aids Christianity more then you know. It prevents a precedent being set in which religion and state become intertwined. Such a thing can backfire on Christians if the primary religion changes. Suddenly Christians will be the ones subjected to religious rules not their own and with no good rational reason to be made into law.

So trust me, you're better off with logic and ethics being used to make law instead of religion.

Quote:

Personally, speaking as a human, I'd be more than willing to give them all the rights they want, but as a servant of something greater than myself and that says the act of homosexuality is wrong, I can't, but I can show them the love of God as well as I can, by listening to them and granting them a voice to hear their opinions on things.

Actually there are some extremely good arguments against the view that God considers homosexuality wrong, based on Scripture and how that view arises from mistranslation and misconception of the Bible.

We can handle that in a seperate post. Or you can give the first page a perusal, as it details it well.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

It could teach that the traditional gender roles of a father and mother are unnecessary, forone.

Why is this a negative?

Single parent homes and broken homes have directly led to increases in crime, poverty, and many other things, through no fault of their own. Thes children simply have no way to learn any better, and the cultural revolutionm back in the 60s started it all, by appealing to humankind's base instincts, that of satisfying one's own desires first.

Broken homes generally have nothing to do with tradition or gender roles, and more to do with shattering a reality for a child.

If you are raised in one state, and halfway through you're suddenly moved to a new place with people you don't know who are very different, it will be traumatizing.

Now imagine that everything you know and love has been changed (your entire family dynamic is different now) because your parents split.

That is where this comes from. And most of the bad effects falsely tied to single parents raising children are actually a result of trauma induced by the loss of a parent, or divorce.

This is especially backed up by studies done by the APA in which children raised by homosexuals were found to be no different in mental, emotional, or physical health and social well being then those raised by heterosexuals.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

I've also heard people compare it to interracial marriages and things of that nature. However, racism is about keeping races apart, whereas marriage is about bringing people together.

So why should homosexuals be denied their right to bring people together?
By denying them the right together, aren't you just separating people unfairly?

I don't have an honest answer here either, but as is evidenced in culture, people can be in relationships together for a long time and never have to get married. It's usually only when some kind of rights are involved somewhere, that it becomes an issue.

That is the issue though.

Secular marriage (the license itself) grants rights to people (like seeing your spouse in the hospital, something a boyfriend or girlfriend is not allowed to do because of privacy laws.)

And these rights are denied to homosexuals through the denial of marriage.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

In addition, they've done studies of interracial children and single-sex household children, and while interracial children have little problems adjusting to "normal" life, children raised with two mothers or fathers have a considerable harder time about it.

Please post your sources for these studies.

I have no sources, other than a Focus on the Family Video I saw the other day. Still you'd be better off finding a slightly more "Neutral" source.

APA has sources stating that children are no different when raised by homosexuals in comparision to children from the traditional family unit.

Do you wish for links?

[PoeticVengeance]

Electra Cheez

gay marraige is wrong because its selfish. there are specific benefits a child recieves from the father and mother; some of which are given only by the fater, some by the mother.

False. The APA has proven you wrong.

Quote:

even if gays don't get children you cannot base gay marraige right by the bible. quote some scripture that (and it doesn't even have to be specific) that accounts for gay marraige is alright and not a sin. i dun care what excuse for gay marraige you hav, as long as the bible is not included in it.

Actually its more that any and all Scripture that you use to state that homosexuality is a sin, doesn't actually say it or is irrelevant because of the New Covenant with the Messiah.

Quote:

and another this. what do you mean bad christian?! do you even know what the word christian means?! 'little christ'? so you're calling me a bad little christ? a bad jesus? for jesus called us all to act as him and be examples. there is know good little christ and no bad little christ. there is only christ.

You aren't good at being a follower of Christ, nor are you good at being a little Christ.

You suck at it. You suck at being a Christain: i.e. you are a bad Christian.

[PoeticVengeance]

Son of Krypton

Ok, where does it say homosexuality isn't a sin?

It actually doesn't state anything about homosexuality and whether it is a sin or not at all in the parts of the bible relevant to the Christian moral guidlines.

So it isn't so much that the Bible says explicitly, "homosexuality is okay", and more that it doesn't say, "homosexuality is bad"

[Sound Doxa]

Son of Krypton

But simply because God didn't use him as the important piece of history's puzzle, doesn't mean he didn't use him at all. God still turned Esau's descendants into a nation as well, the nation of Edom. Edom was quite instrumental in Israel's history, though they were destroyed by either the Assyrians or Babylonians, I can't remember which.

And this negates the statement that God hated him how?

[Elf Lord Chiewn]

Electra Cheez

gay marraige is wrong because its selfish.

Shellfish? No, that became moot when--

Oh, right. Selfish. Like heterosexuals who feel they are morally superior for some warped reason.

Electra Cheez

there are specific benefits a child recieves from the father and mother; some of which are given only by the fater, some by the mother.

That was debunked years ago.

Electra Cheez

even if gays don't get children

Which would be wrong.

Electra Cheez

you cannot base gay marraige right by the bible.

I like you. You're funny.

Electra Cheez

quote some scripture that (and it doesn't even have to be specific) that accounts for gay marraige is alright and not a sin.

I will bear this burden of proof, just as soon as you state publicly that anything not explicitly endorsed by the bible is against divine law. That includes cars, condoms, guns, aspirin, hair gel, mp3 players, ragtime, drinking water, Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat, North and South America, newspapers, Navel Oranges, Neptune, pi being more than 3, school clubs, Dumas, college-ruled binders, David Beckham's left foot, David Beckham's right foot, Martin Luther King Jr., you, me, my goldfish, anime, online forums, toothbrushes, the U.N., Mother Teresa, spaghetti, and so on.

The whole works.

Electra Cheez

i dun care what excuse for gay marraige you hav, as long as the bible is not included in it.

This just in: I don't give a ******** what you care for my arguments. No unmarried man or woman should ever need an excuse to get married to the person they want to be married to, under divine or any other law.

Electra Cheez

and another this. what do you mean bad christian?!

I mean people like you. Glad we could clear that up.

Electra Cheez

do you even know what the word christian means?!

Yep. And you're not living up to the title.

Electra Cheez

'little christ'?

I was going for bad follower of Yeshua, but hey, if the shoe fits...

Electra Cheez

so you're calling me a bad little christ?

Well, you are bad at being a mini-Yeshua. Dr. Evil had better luck.

Electra Cheez

a bad jesus?

No, Yeshua isn't bad.

Electra Cheez

for jesus called us all to act as him and be examples.

If that is true, then why aren't you?

Electra Cheez

there is know good little christ and no bad little christ. there is only christ.

You aren't a little Christ. Sorry, kid.
Better luck next life?

[TrunkstheSlayer]

Been too long since i mega posted

Son of Krypton

SoundDoctrine

Son of Krypton

I may not agree with the issue of gay marriage, but I see the issue of divorce to be a far more pressing concern to me.

Well, since divorce isn't the issue at hand, could you expand on why you do not agree with the issue of gay marriage?

Ok, I'll see what I can do, though I haven't heard exactly what it would entail in great detail.

I believe that the actual act of homosexuality is wrong, because it takes place outside of the current boundaries of marriage. I refuse to get into the discussion of whether God doesn't like homosexuals or not, becauswe I believe he loves everyone, and Fred Phelps out at that psycho church in Kansas is probably headed to hell faster than the gays he hates. But I digress.

The institution of marriage has been around longer than any other institution in history, before religion, and certainly before any type of government. The anthropological record has many examples of male-female pairing for life for protection, companionship, and the good old roll in the hay every once and again. I don't know if they found any evidence of same-sex pairings, but if they did, they didn't last more than one generation, simply because of the biological implications of being unable to reproduce.

Guess what? You won't last longer than a generation either, reproducing or otherwise

Quote:

Personally, I don't understand the mentality if a homosexual individual, simply because I'm not one, and I can't understand what I'm not very well. But I do know they want companionship, and either a biological function, or maybe some kind of psychological episode occurred at a young age, and now they find the same sex attractive for some reason.

Prove your claims. Prove it is a result of childhood trauma rather than simple biological makeup

Quote:

I feel same-sex marriage could be very damaging to the family because it affects so many different things in culture.

yet you offer no proof

Quote:

It could teach that the traditional gender roles of a father and mother are unnecessary, forone.

They ARE unnecessary. Notice how gender roles differ in different cultures?

Quote:

I've also heard people compare it to interracial marriages and things of that nature. However, racism is about keeping races apart, whereas marriage is about bringing people together.

Wow, you're a failure at comparisons.
Interracial marriage was illegal for the same reasons gay marriage is illegal

Quote:

In addition, they've done studies of interracial children and single-sex household children, and while interracial children have little problems adjusting to "normal" life, children raised with two mothers or fathers have a considerable harder time about it.

you sir, are a liar.
Parenting
- Discovery Health: Students of Same-Sex Parents Well-Adjusted
- APA Study on Children of Gay Couples
- Washington Post: Gay Parents Find More Acceptance
- WebMD: Same-Sex Parents Raise Well-Adjusted Kids
- Pediatricians Debunk Myths About LGBT Parents
- American Psychologist: Deconstruction the Essential Father
-APA: Same-Sex Parenting
-APA: The Children Of Same-Sex Couples

Quote:

I've been of the understanding that marriage was to take one wife or husband and love, care for, and honor them until one of you dies.In primitive cultures it was probably like finding a companion to raise offspring and then simply staying with them.

show how the same can't apply to gay couples. don't even try the reproduction crap either. many gay couples raise children and not all straight couples do

Quote:

think the boundaries are necessary because is same-sex marriage is allowed, who's to say what next type of relationship could fall under the umbrella. There could be people that want to marry farm animals, appliances, and a while host of other things, and if these were to all be allowed, society as we know it could collapse. I'm not saying it will, just that it's a possibility.

you just proved you're an idiot. slippery slope fallacies are called such for a reason.
homosexual marriage is consentual. how DARE you compare it to the RAPE involved in beastiality.
animals can't consent and have no legal standing.

Quote:

Why couldn't I be free to marry two women if I wanted to? The definition of love has been so skewered, especially over the last century, that it more means lust than anything else.

prove it

Quote:

Sure, there are many examples of the old kind, but those are slowly going out of the picture. Love has so many meanings that people forget what kind they are actually feeling. For instance, the term "Puppy love" is also infatuation, namely, attraction on a mostly physical scale. Most young couples that have sex before marriage fall into this category, because the saying once went, "Puppy love feels real to the puppy," andf they either lack the self-control, or simply don'tcare about anything but satisfying the beast they just let themselves go.

relevance to topic? none. you have no proof of ANY of your claims, let alone proof that gay couples aren't just as, if not MORE loving than straight ones

Quote:

Perhaps, but there's also a lot of intolerance towards Christians, with the negatives coming down somewhere in the middle. Christians have done a mediocre to awful job of showing the love of Christ to people, with many not showing any love at all. But society hasn't been very forgiving, particularly with the advent of political correctness, and the removal of God from the public square. But I digress.

ah, good ol' persecution complex. i've missed it so.

Quote:

Personally, speaking as a human, I'd be more than willing to give them all the rights they want, but as a servant of something greater than myself and that says the act of homosexuality is wrong, I can't, but I can show them the love of God as well as I can, by listening to them and granting them a voice to hear their opinions on things.

Prove God supports your bigotry. I dare you. Don't make excuses.

Quote:

Single parent homes and broken homes have directly led to increases in crime, poverty, and many other things, through no fault of their own. Thes children simply have no way to learn any better, and the cultural revolutionm back in the 60s started it all, by appealing to humankind's base instincts, that of satisfying one's own desires first.

proof? oh that's right, you don't have any. Get out of ED.

Quote:

I don't have an honest answer here either, but as is evidenced in culture, people can be in relationships together for a long time and never have to get married. It's usually only when some kind of rights are involved somewhere, that it becomes an issue

relevance? what if you were told you couldn't see your dying lover in the hospital? think about that

Quote:

have no sources, other than a Focus on the Family Video I saw the other day. Still you'd be better off finding a slightly more "Neutral" source.

if you don't have proof to your claims, DON'T MAKE THEM HERE! All you're doing is lying and we all know it. Either back your claims or don't make them at all.

Quote:

Ok, where does it say homosexuality isn't a sin?

Where does it say computer use isn't a sin?

Quote:

Oh, no He says what he means, but humans have the knack to misinterpret things, often grossly.

yourself included

Quote:

If God hates, then John 3:16 is a lie, and if that's a lie, Christ died in vain, and I've wasted the past 16 years of my life believing something that's a complete sham

forgive the joke but.....
welcome to the light

[Chief Captain Moroni]

elf lord is wrong

[maybecca]

Chief Captain Moroni

elf lord is wrong

Elf Lord is right.

See, my statement has more truthiness than yours, because I used proper capitalisation and punctuation. If you can't handle such advanced linguistic techniques, could you at least provide some evidence to support your assertion?

[Chief Captain Moroni]

chrisoya

Chief Captain Moroni

elf lord is wrong

Elf Lord is right.

See, my statement has more truthiness than yours, because I used proper capitalisation and punctuation. If you can't handle such advanced linguistic techniques, could you at least provide some evidence to support your assertion?

He is not my lord, so I will not capitalize his name... sorry. Why don't you prove it's wrong, instead.

Peace out

[maybecca]

Chief Captain Moroni

He is not my lord, so I will not capitalize his name... sorry. Why don't you prove it's wrong, instead.

Peace out

Upon what do you base your claim that he is wrong, then? I can't answer that for you, since you haven't actually posted anything to support your claim.