|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High-functioning Businesswoman
|
 Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 11:57 am
Well, obviously, there is some issue with homosexuality (or else it wouldn't be a debate). On some level, homosexuality is bad, and it's our job as Christians to figure out what that is. If there was no problem with it, it wouldn't be spoken out against in various places in the Old and New Testaments. Why did God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis)? Why doesn't God want men having sex with men (which is mentioned right before women having sex with animals- the only reason we don't debate that is because pretty much everyone agrees that's disgusting) (Leviticus)? What was so bad about the situation in which women were exchanging "natural" sexual relations with men for women, and men for men (could it just have been the lusting part?) (Romans)? What is so bad about effeminate men (1 Corinthians)? These situations all have something in common. Once we can figure out what it is, I think things will be less confusing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 6:54 pm
Fushigi na Butterfly Politically (at least in America), it seems that homosexuality is a no-no. Socially ... or ... at least ... on an individual level, it seems that most people have a live and let live attitude. If individuals had the view of the politicians, that would basically be like society saying homosexuality is bad. confused
I'd tend to agree with this statement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 7:00 pm
Trix Starlight masumi5 One more thing; If society still said homosexuality is bad, would you still think it's ok? Society...does, on the whole, say homosexuality is bad. Also, hands up here, everyone who doesn't eat meat with blood in it - ever? And nerve touched a woman during a period/been touched by a man during her period? And who has/plans to have all their male kids circumsised? And who makes offerings so many weeks after being pregnant? Unless you do/would do all these things (and quite a lot of other things besides), you cannot quote leviticus as a source for saying that men shouldn't sleep together. Because all these rules are in there two - and some are in faaaar more depth than the one about men not sleeping together.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 7:12 pm
Lethkhar And honestly, it's you homophobic people that brought up the subject in the first place. Gay marriage shouldn't even really be an issue, and trust me when I say that gays probably wouldn't complain if you stopped trying to deny them basic human rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 7:54 pm
ryuu_chan Darkx_xAngelx_x237 Besides if we had to grant equal rights of marriage to homosexuals, then how is that different from saying the same to other people that practice such immorality like marrying direct family members, animals, or even having multiple wives? Forgive me if this comes out EXTREMELY harsh-sounding, but I can't believe I just read such an ignorant statement in this guild. You're comparing gay people -- thinking, caring, loving beings -- to animals? I've always hated this argument because it puts homosexuals so far beneath the rest of us that it's inhumane. I mean, Massachussetts has had legalized gay marriage for a few years now and there's no rampant sibling marriages, hellfire and brimstone flying about or someone wanting to marry their toaster. Same thing in Canada. I mean, the thing we should be worried about is something like the fact that American still practices the death penalty when one of our first commandments is 'thou shalt not kill.' I think being in direct violation of that in our very judicial system is a little more dire than legalizing a love-match. Pardon my ignorant statement, I apologize if I offended anybody. I didn't mean to compare the 2, but I'm simply stating that we shouldn't be doing anything of them if that is what the bible says. I have a lot of respect for homosexuals as people. In fact 2 of my closest friends happen to be. They are intellectual just like all of us, but there will always be something we disagree on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 8:03 pm
Priestley Lethkhar And honestly, it's you homophobic people that brought up the subject in the first place. Gay marriage shouldn't even really be an issue, and trust me when I say that gays probably wouldn't complain if you stopped trying to deny them basic human rights. Who's abusing whom? I'm not the one that's encouraging discrimination of almost 10% of the U.S. population. Thousands of gays are killed every year in hate crimes, and it's mindsets like these that cause that. It's infuriating to think that people would even consider gay marriage to be debatable. These are basic civil rights that should be granted to everyone. You can say I'm "spouting abuse", but I am being completetely serious here. I take this issue very personally, and it really stirs my blood. You shouldn't deny citizens equal rights based on anything other than if they are criminals. Actions like that lead to larger and more dangerous discrimination. We're already at step 3 in the 8 steps defined by Genocide Watch, with the actual genocide being step 7.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 8:04 pm
Lethkhar Darkx_xAngelx_x237 It shouldn't really matter about what the people want, it should be what God requires. Homosexuality is immoral as is to a lot of other practices. In more than one place does it talk of sexually immoral practices. Homosexuality being one of them. Ex. Leviticus 18 & Romans 1 Lev 18:22 "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin Rom 1:25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator–who is forever praised. Amen. Rom 1:26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. Rom 1:27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Rom 1:28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. That's a matter of opinion. You have no rational reason to deny gays the right to marry. You have a book. Lethkhar Darkx_xAngelx_x237 Besides if we had to grant equal rights of marriage to homosexuals, then how is that different from saying the same to other people that practice such immorality like marrying direct family members, Because homosexuals can't reproduce with one another, and therefore cannot even be at risk for passing on a genetic disease. Lethkhar It's simple, really: Gay people aren't animals. They can consent, unlike animals. Lethkhar Darkx_xAngelx_x237 or even having multiple wives? Quite frankly, I don't really have an issue with polygamy. As long as everyone is consenting, I don't see why it's a big deal. I don't really agree with it, but I recognize their right to do what they want in that respect. They're not hurting anyone. Lethkhar Darkx_xAngelx_x237 Lethkhar A lot of people in the Bible didn't seem to have an issue with polygamy, either... Marriage or relationship, it's still immoral in God's eyes. We still need to keep that in mind. That's your opinion. Nonetheless, if you're going to appeal to a power higher than that of U.S. law then there's really no reason for you to worry about U.S. law. After all, according to your book, God is really the only one with the right to judge people. You really have no right to impose anything on anyone based on a possibly fallable interpretation of a book.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 8:42 pm
Priestley Lethkhar Darkx_xAngelx_x237 It shouldn't really matter about what the people want, it should be what God requires. Homosexuality is immoral as is to a lot of other practices. In more than one place does it talk of sexually immoral practices. Homosexuality being one of them. Ex. Leviticus 18 & Romans 1 Lev 18:22 "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin Rom 1:25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator–who is forever praised. Amen. Rom 1:26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. Rom 1:27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Rom 1:28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. That's a matter of opinion. You have no rational reason to deny gays the right to marry. You have a book. Same-sex marriage is recognized in a grand total of two states in the U.S. As for the other 48...Well, that's called "denying people their rights as U.S. citizens". Quote: Lethkhar Darkx_xAngelx_x237 Besides if we had to grant equal rights of marriage to homosexuals, then how is that different from saying the same to other people that practice such immorality like marrying direct family members, Because homosexuals can't reproduce with one another, and therefore cannot even be at risk for passing on a genetic disease. Lot was a "righteous man". He had sex with both of his daughter and had children with them. Tell me: What does the Bible say about sex/marriage with family members? And better yet: What the hell does it have to do with homosexuality? Quote: Lethkhar It's simple, really: Gay people aren't animals. They can consent, unlike animals. Animals cannot express true consent which can then be testified for in court. Therefore, animals cannot give consent to marriage and/or sex whereas homosexual adults can. Quote: If an animal reciprocates, it is sufficient to say that is the animal's consent. Not in U.S. law. Quote: Just because an animal doesn't know what marriage is, suffice to say it's well aware of the living thing with which it gets freaky. If you allow for gay marriage, you should have no problems with people marrying animals. I do. Gay people are able to consent to a marriage. Dogs, on the other hand, are incapable of marrying for several reasons: 1. They are not technically a citizen of any nation. They have no paperwork, so to speak, that actually would make legal marriage even possible. 2. They cannot give consent, either in written or spoken form. 3. They cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that they even understand what marriage is, and therefore cannot actually be expected to be able to consent to marriage. Quote: Marriage in this case has ceased to be the union of man with woman in order to set up an environment for reproduction. Marriage is a legal union between two citizens. Nothing more, really. Quote: Lethkhar Darkx_xAngelx_x237 or even having multiple wives? Quite frankly, I don't really have an issue with polygamy. As long as everyone is consenting, I don't see why it's a big deal. I don't really agree with it, but I recognize their right to do what they want in that respect. They're not hurting anyone. Prove to me that all polygamists hate their spouses and you might be on to something. Quote: Lethkhar Darkx_xAngelx_x237 Lethkhar A lot of people in the Bible didn't seem to have an issue with polygamy, either... Marriage or relationship, it's still immoral in God's eyes. We still need to keep that in mind. That's your opinion. Nonetheless, if you're going to appeal to a power higher than that of U.S. law then there's really no reason for you to worry about U.S. law. After all, according to your book, God is really the only one with the right to judge people. You really have no right to impose anything on anyone based on a possibly fallable interpretation of a book. I don't deny that you have every right to say whatever you want. You can argue all you want. All I'm saying is that you really shouldn't feel compelled to appeal U.S. law if you're going to appeal to a higher authority anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 8:43 pm
Lethkhar Priestley Lethkhar And honestly, it's you homophobic people that brought up the subject in the first place. Gay marriage shouldn't even really be an issue, and trust me when I say that gays probably wouldn't complain if you stopped trying to deny them basic human rights. Who's abusing whom? I'm not the one that's encouraging discrimination of almost 10% of the U.S. population. Thousands of gays are killed every year in hate crimes, and it's mindsets like these that cause that. It's infuriating to think that people would even consider gay marriage to be debatable. These are basic civil rights that should be granted to everyone. You can say I'm "spouting abuse", but I am being completetely serious here. I take this issue very personally, and it really stirs my blood. You shouldn't deny citizens equal rights based on anything other than if they are criminals. Actions like that lead to larger and more dangerous discrimination. We're already at step 3 in the 8 steps defined by Genocide Watch, with the actual genocide being step 7.
Also unfounded is that we are encouraging discrimination. You are accusing us of having a mindset of hate towards gay people and of promoting hate towards them. We are not doing that at all. I personally believe that any hate shown towards people is unacceptable, especially when it leads to the harm of any person regardless of leaning.
I understand you feel very strongly about this issue, but it does not grant you the right to throw unfounded accusations around. We are certainly not dehumanising (3rd stage of Genocide, according to Genocide Watch) gay people. While it may be the policy of certain countries to permit civil marriage between gay individuals, it is neither encouraged nor discouraged in Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In fact, Paragraph 3 states that 'the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.' If the State decides it is acceptable for such a family unit to comprise a same-gender couple and children, society and the State must protect it. But, equally, if the State decides that the family unit requires opposite-gender couples and children, then that is what they must protect. It does not specify what constitutes a family unit or whether it must include children, but you must concede that gay marriage is not conducive to the production of a family unit.
Please try to calm down. No one in this thread has been aggressive regarding this issue until now. We would like it carry on as it started.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 8:55 pm
Priestley Lethkhar Priestley Lethkhar And honestly, it's you homophobic people that brought up the subject in the first place. Gay marriage shouldn't even really be an issue, and trust me when I say that gays probably wouldn't complain if you stopped trying to deny them basic human rights. Who's abusing whom? I'm not the one that's encouraging discrimination of almost 10% of the U.S. population. Thousands of gays are killed every year in hate crimes, and it's mindsets like these that cause that. It's infuriating to think that people would even consider gay marriage to be debatable. These are basic civil rights that should be granted to everyone. You can say I'm "spouting abuse", but I am being completetely serious here. I take this issue very personally, and it really stirs my blood. You shouldn't deny citizens equal rights based on anything other than if they are criminals. Actions like that lead to larger and more dangerous discrimination. We're already at step 3 in the 8 steps defined by Genocide Watch, with the actual genocide being step 7. That is a lie. You consider marriage between homosexuals to be wrong. Do you consider marriage between all humans to be wrong? Quote: Also unfounded is that we are encouraging discrimination. You are accusing us of having a mindset of hate towards gay people and of promoting hate towards them. We are not doing that at all. I personally believe that any hate shown towards people is unacceptable, especially when it leads to the harm of any person regardless of leaning. That may be so. But denying rights to a group of people is, in fact, discriminating against them whether you mean to or not. Considering them in any way inferior in the eyes of the law promotes hatred and the isolation of that group from the rest of the society, even if that wasn't the original intention. Quote: I understand you feel very strongly about this issue, but it does not grant you the right to throw unfounded accusations around. We are certainly not dehumanising (3rd stage of Genocide, according to Genocide Watch) gay people. Quote: If you allow for gay marriage, you should have no problems with people marrying animals. That, my friend, is called "dehumanization". Conciously or not, you are being extremely discriminatory towards homosexuals in considering them equal to animals in terms of marriage rights. Quote: While it may be the policy of certain countries to permit civil marriage between gay individuals, it is neither encouraged nor discouraged in Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In fact, Paragraph 3 states that 'the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.' If the State decides it is acceptable for such a family unit to comprise a same-gender couple and children, society and the State must protect it. But, equally, if the State decides that the family unit requires opposite-gender couples and children, then that is what they must protect. It does not specify what constitutes a family unit or whether it must include children, but you must concede that gay marriage is not conducive to the production of a family unit. What you say here is irrelevant, as it draws no conclusions to the definition of a "family unit". I could just as easily make the case that your quote requires all family units to be comprised only of gay people. This is a logical fallacy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 9:39 pm
Lethkhar Priestley Lethkhar And honestly, it's you homophobic people that brought up the subject in the first place. Gay marriage shouldn't even really be an issue, and trust me when I say that gays probably wouldn't complain if you stopped trying to deny them basic human rights. Who's abusing whom? I'm not the one that's encouraging discrimination of almost 10% of the U.S. population. Thousands of gays are killed every year in hate crimes, and it's mindsets like these that cause that. It's infuriating to think that people would even consider gay marriage to be debatable. These are basic civil rights that should be granted to everyone. You can say I'm "spouting abuse", but I am being completetely serious here. I take this issue very personally, and it really stirs my blood. You shouldn't deny citizens equal rights based on anything other than if they are criminals. Actions like that lead to larger and more dangerous discrimination. We're already at step 3 in the 8 steps defined by Genocide Watch, with the actual genocide being step 7.
I, for one, personally support gay marriage and I really have no qualms with homosexuality. So being called a homophobe is a little silly to me. I think, in general, try to avoid the broad generalizations please? Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 10:21 pm
Lethkhar Priestley Lethkhar Darkx_xAngelx_x237 It shouldn't really matter about what the people want, it should be what God requires. Homosexuality is immoral as is to a lot of other practices. In more than one place does it talk of sexually immoral practices. Homosexuality being one of them. Ex. Leviticus 18 & Romans 1 Lev 18:22 "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin Rom 1:25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator–who is forever praised. Amen. Rom 1:26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. Rom 1:27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Rom 1:28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. That's a matter of opinion. You have no rational reason to deny gays the right to marry. You have a book. Same-sex marriage is recognized in a grand total of two states in the U.S. As for the other 48...Well, that's called "denying people their rights as U.S. citizens".
Again, I ask, how are we personally denying gay people the right to marry by saying that we disagree with the idea of same-gender marriages? You never answered.Lethkhar Priestley Lethkhar Darkx_xAngelx_x237 Besides if we had to grant equal rights of marriage to homosexuals, then how is that different from saying the same to other people that practice such immorality like marrying direct family members, Because homosexuals can't reproduce with one another, and therefore cannot even be at risk for passing on a genetic disease. Lot was a "righteous man". He had sex with both of his daughter and had children with them. Lethkhar Tell me: What does the Bible say about sex/marriage with family members? And better yet: What the hell does it have to do with homosexuality? Lethkhar Priestley Lethkhar It's simple, really: Gay people aren't animals. They can consent, unlike animals. Animals cannot express true consent which can then be testified for in court. Therefore, animals cannot give consent to marriage and/or sex whereas homosexual adults can. Lethkhar Priestley If an animal reciprocates, it is sufficient to say that is the animal's consent. Not in U.S. law. Lethkhar Priestley Just because an animal doesn't know what marriage is, suffice to say it's well aware of the living thing with which it gets freaky. If you allow for gay marriage, you should have no problems with people marrying animals. I do. Gay people are able to consent to a marriage. Dogs, on the other hand, are incapable of marrying for several reasons: 1. They are not technically a citizen of any nation. They have no paperwork, so to speak, that actually would make legal marriage even possible. 2. They cannot give consent, either in written or spoken form. 3. They cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that they even understand what marriage is, and therefore cannot actually be expected to be able to consent to marriage. Lethkhar Priestley Marriage in this case has ceased to be the union of man with woman in order to set up an environment for reproduction. Marriage is a legal union between two citizens. Nothing more, really.
I would argue that the US State in general doesn't recognise same-gender unions/marriages to be valid family units and, therefore, they are not protected under Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or awarded the rights contained therein.
Sorry.Lethkhar Priestley Lethkhar Darkx_xAngelx_x237 or even having multiple wives? Quite frankly, I don't really have an issue with polygamy. As long as everyone is consenting, I don't see why it's a big deal. I don't really agree with it, but I recognize their right to do what they want in that respect. They're not hurting anyone. Prove to me that all polygamists hate their spouses and you might be on to something. Lethkhar Priestley Lethkhar Darkx_xAngelx_x237 Lethkhar A lot of people in the Bible didn't seem to have an issue with polygamy, either... Marriage or relationship, it's still immoral in God's eyes. We still need to keep that in mind. That's your opinion. Nonetheless, if you're going to appeal to a power higher than that of U.S. law then there's really no reason for you to worry about U.S. law. After all, according to your book, God is really the only one with the right to judge people. You really have no right to impose anything on anyone based on a possibly fallable interpretation of a book. I don't deny that you have every right to say whatever you want. You can argue all you want. All I'm saying is that you really shouldn't feel compelled to appeal U.S. law if you're going to appeal to a higher authority anyway.
I was actually coming to the defence of Darkx_xAngelx_x237, whom you accused of judging gay people by quoting Scripture. If you have a problem with what God says about the practice of homosexuality, take it up with Him. Don't accuse people in this guild.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 11:37 pm
Lethkhar Priestley Lethkhar Priestley Lethkhar And honestly, it's you homophobic people that brought up the subject in the first place. Gay marriage shouldn't even really be an issue, and trust me when I say that gays probably wouldn't complain if you stopped trying to deny them basic human rights. Who's abusing whom? I'm not the one that's encouraging discrimination of almost 10% of the U.S. population. Thousands of gays are killed every year in hate crimes, and it's mindsets like these that cause that. It's infuriating to think that people would even consider gay marriage to be debatable. These are basic civil rights that should be granted to everyone. You can say I'm "spouting abuse", but I am being completetely serious here. I take this issue very personally, and it really stirs my blood. You shouldn't deny citizens equal rights based on anything other than if they are criminals. Actions like that lead to larger and more dangerous discrimination. We're already at step 3 in the 8 steps defined by Genocide Watch, with the actual genocide being step 7. That is a lie. You consider marriage between homosexuals to be wrong. Do you consider marriage between all humans to be wrong?
Let me put you straight. I don't recognise gay marriage because I believe true marriage to be the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of creating a biological family. In this case, the romance and pleasure that come with sex serve to strengthen the bond between husband and wife. However, in a homosexual marriage, since there is no chance of conception unless provided by someone outside of the marriage, I see the marriage is practically void. Feel free to disagree with me here as this is my personal view.Lethkhar Priestley Also unfounded is that we are encouraging discrimination. You are accusing us of having a mindset of hate towards gay people and of promoting hate towards them. We are not doing that at all. I personally believe that any hate shown towards people is unacceptable, especially when it leads to the harm of any person regardless of leaning. That may be so. But denying rights to a group of people is, in fact, discriminating against them whether you mean to or not. Considering them in any way inferior in the eyes of the law promotes hatred and the isolation of that group from the rest of the society, even if that wasn't the original intention. Lethkhar Priestley I understand you feel very strongly about this issue, but it does not grant you the right to throw unfounded accusations around. We are certainly not dehumanising (3rd stage of Genocide, according to Genocide Watch) gay people. Priestley If you allow for gay marriage, you should have no problems with people marrying animals. That, my friend, is called "dehumanization". Conciously or not, you are being extremely discriminatory towards homosexuals in considering them equal to animals in terms of marriage rights.
In terms of sin, the practice of homosexuality is equal to all other sinful behaviour, which includes sex with animals. If you want to disagree with that, you'll have to take it up with God.Lethkhar Priestley While it may be the policy of certain countries to permit civil marriage between gay individuals, it is neither encouraged nor discouraged in Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In fact, Paragraph 3 states that 'the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.' If the State decides it is acceptable for such a family unit to comprise a same-gender couple and children, society and the State must protect it. But, equally, if the State decides that the family unit requires opposite-gender couples and children, then that is what they must protect. It does not specify what constitutes a family unit or whether it must include children, but you must concede that gay marriage is not conducive to the production of a family unit. What you say here is irrelevant, as it draws no conclusions to the definition of a "family unit". I could just as easily make the case that your quote requires all family units to be comprised only of gay people. This is a logical fallacy.
Though, it'd be interesting to know how you could reason that my quote requires that a family unite comprise only gay people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 6:11 pm
Liberal homophobia: 'Disagreeing with homosexuality/gay marriage'
This is the newer def. of homophobia, made up by gay marriage supporters to try and guilt/annoy the ppl who disagree. I've seen good ppl called this for the sole reason that they disagreed, and said it.
Oh wait... that's right....calling homosexuality immoral is hate speech....
Old homophobia: 'Fearing and hating gay ppl'
Simple enough...
Yea, just thought that that should be brought into attention.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 7:10 pm
Priestley Lethkhar Priestley Lethkhar Darkx_xAngelx_x237 It shouldn't really matter about what the people want, it should be what God requires. Homosexuality is immoral as is to a lot of other practices. In more than one place does it talk of sexually immoral practices. Homosexuality being one of them. Ex. Leviticus 18 & Romans 1 Lev 18:22 "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin Rom 1:25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator–who is forever praised. Amen. Rom 1:26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. Rom 1:27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Rom 1:28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. That's a matter of opinion. You have no rational reason to deny gays the right to marry. You have a book. Same-sex marriage is recognized in a grand total of two states in the U.S. As for the other 48...Well, that's called "denying people their rights as U.S. citizens".
Again, I ask, how are we personally denying gay people the right to marry by saying that we disagree with the idea of same-gender marriages? You never answered.Ah...That would be the problem. I wasn't sure if you were the English one or not... Here in U.S. we unfortunately have a large movement toward preventing gay couples from marrying. This movement, of course, is denying gay people with the right to marry. Therefore, if you are part of or support this movement you are denying gay people the right to marry. I don't know what it's like in the UK. Quote: Lethkhar Priestley Lethkhar Darkx_xAngelx_x237 Besides if we had to grant equal rights of marriage to homosexuals, then how is that different from saying the same to other people that practice such immorality like marrying direct family members, Because homosexuals can't reproduce with one another, and therefore cannot even be at risk for passing on a genetic disease. Lot was a "righteous man". He had sex with both of his daughter and had children with them. Considering how God treats the subject of rape in the Bible...Yeah. Quote: Lethkhar Priestley Lethkhar It's simple, really: Gay people aren't animals. They can consent, unlike animals. Animals cannot express true consent which can then be testified for in court. Therefore, animals cannot give consent to marriage and/or sex whereas homosexual adults can. Unfortunately, "God says so" is not a rational argument in a court of law. Quote: Lethkhar Priestley If an animal reciprocates, it is sufficient to say that is the animal's consent. Not in U.S. law. Lethkhar Priestley Just because an animal doesn't know what marriage is, suffice to say it's well aware of the living thing with which it gets freaky. If you allow for gay marriage, you should have no problems with people marrying animals. I do. Gay people are able to consent to a marriage. Dogs, on the other hand, are incapable of marrying for several reasons: 1. They are not technically a citizen of any nation. They have no paperwork, so to speak, that actually would make legal marriage even possible. 2. They cannot give consent, either in written or spoken form. 3. They cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that they even understand what marriage is, and therefore cannot actually be expected to be able to consent to marriage. Of course they are. If an animal is in the US, they are subject to every law that is relevant to them. Animal rights, etc. Quote: Lethkhar Priestley Marriage in this case has ceased to be the union of man with woman in order to set up an environment for reproduction. Marriage is a legal union between two citizens. Nothing more, really.
I would argue that the US State in general doesn't recognise same-gender unions/marriages to be valid family units and, therefore, they are not protected under Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or awarded the rights contained therein.
Sorry.I would argue that 2 US states do recognize same-gender unions/marriages to be valid family units, and according to the "Each State to Honor all others" clause in Article IV of the US Constitution every other state must give "Full Faith and Credit" to those states. Considering that gay marriage is unrecognized only in the absence of law, not the existence of it, in the other states, this would imply that the US as a whole actually recognizes same-gender unions/marriages to be valid family units. Quote: Lethkhar Priestley Lethkhar Darkx_xAngelx_x237 or even having multiple wives? Quite frankly, I don't really have an issue with polygamy. As long as everyone is consenting, I don't see why it's a big deal. I don't really agree with it, but I recognize their right to do what they want in that respect. They're not hurting anyone. Prove to me that all polygamists hate their spouses and you might be on to something. I suppose I misunderstood, then. What did you mean when you said that polygamy generates,"more negative feelings towards one another than positive ones, encouraging discord between people..."? Quote: Lethkhar Priestley Lethkhar Darkx_xAngelx_x237 Marriage or relationship, it's still immoral in God's eyes. We still need to keep that in mind. That's your opinion. Nonetheless, if you're going to appeal to a power higher than that of U.S. law then there's really no reason for you to worry about U.S. law. After all, according to your book, God is really the only one with the right to judge people. You really have no right to impose anything on anyone based on a possibly fallable interpretation of a book. I don't deny that you have every right to say whatever you want. You can argue all you want. All I'm saying is that you really shouldn't feel compelled to appeal U.S. law if you're going to appeal to a higher authority anyway.
I was actually coming to the defence of Darkx_xAngelx_x237, whom you accused of judging gay people by quoting Scripture. If you have a problem with what God says about the practice of homosexuality, take it up with Him. Don't accuse people in this guild. Explain to me how she was not judging gay people. Granted, she was judging people using someone else's opinions, but she was judging gay people nonetheless. And I also was talking to her. She was appealing to US law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
