I would really love an answer from our resident Christians…
-
hadmatter — 15 years ago(July 14, 2010 09:17 AM)
Your latest message is composed of more of the same tired gay radical rhetoric. Every one of your half-baked arguments has been destroyed many times over by myself as well as others on this board.
Whined about and denied, but never destroyed. You and your ilk seem to believe that merely disagreeing with someone counts as "winning".
Too bad you still haven't come up with a valid REASON why governments should sanction a 'marriage' between two people of the same gender.
Can you come up with a reason why a government should sanction a 'marriage' between two people of ANY gender?
As long as the government gives prizes to heterosexuals for being heterosexual, then we do
not
have equal rights. Either same-sex marriage should be legal, with all the same rights and rewards, or heterosexual marriage should come with NO ENDORSEMENT FROM THE GOVERNMENT.
I always get a kick out of radical loons like you who say that people 'fear' gays. Why would anyone 'fear' about 2% of the population that is wired differently sexually?
I don't know, scaredy-cat. You tell me.
Most of us understand biology and have learned in grade school that the anus isn't a reproductive organ. We know that 'gay marriage' is an oxymoron.
In spite of your denial, your argument is boiling down to a belief that marriage only exists for the purpose of reproduction. Which I can prove is untrue. Do you have any OTHER arguments, or is this the part where you run away because you've nothing else to say?
I am the sod-off shotgun. -
anasamas — 15 years ago(July 14, 2010 02:29 PM)
In spite of your denial, your argument is boiling down to a belief that marriage only exists for the purpose of reproduction. Which I can prove is untrue. Do you have any OTHER arguments, or is this the part where you run away because you've nothing else to say?
LOL! Another famous tactic by you losers is once someone says goodbye, you have to get the last word in and then accuse the opposition of 'running away'.
Since you are incredibly dense, I'll help you out this one time.
I've said about 3 or 4 times that these arguments have been done to death. The reproductive area of this debate has been discussed many times. There are always exceptions, and this is just another desperate attempt to make your unbelievable weak case. Yes, the exceptions here are sterile folks, older people, and couples that choose not to have children. These exceptions do not change the primary factors why marriage is between a man and woman. Homosexuals are just 2% of the population and have zero possibility of creating a family in a homosexual union. That's why, excepting the 9 or 10 small countries, the world continues to have marriage exclusively between opposite genders.
Can you come up with a reason why a government should sanction a 'marriage' between two people of ANY gender?
As long as the government gives prizes to heterosexuals for being heterosexual, then we do not have equal rights. Either same-sex marriage should be legal, with all the same rights and rewards, or heterosexual marriage should come with NO ENDORSEMENT FROM THE GOVERNMENT.
As usual, you sound like a spoiled child who isn't allowed to have his candy.
We don't have to provide
any
'reasons'. The onus is on
you
to supply a valid argument because
you
are the ones that want the law changed.
Since you are unable to do this, the laws will remain as they are. Until it gets back to the Supreme Court, the only hope you have is to go state-to-state and play the whiny 'we want equal rights' card, even though you already have the same rights as every other citizen of the U.S. You happen to prefer your own gender and that's fine, but it isn't going to get you a marriage license.
I am confident that you will respond again because you
have
to get the last word even though you cannot win this debate. Unfortunately, it will fall on deaf ears. You can repeat the same tired nonsensical arguments to the next person who opposes this gay marriage scam.
See ya, chump -
BoogieKnight — 15 years ago(July 15, 2010 12:23 AM)
"The reproductive area of this debate has been discussed many times. There are always exceptions, and this is just another desperate attempt to make your unbelievable weak case. Yes, the exceptions here are sterile folks, older people, and couples that choose not to have children. These exceptions do not change the primary factors why marriage is between a man and woman. Homosexuals are just 2% of the population and have zero possibility of creating a family in a homosexual union."
This is merely your grand personal societal planner opinion, which has nothing to do with the law. The contention of "this is the way it's always been so that's the way it should always be" is also not a legal conclusion. The debate is about a legal contract between two people, not about families, children, pets, houses with picket fences, tradition, religion, etc. If any of this had legal merit, it would have been covered in the now concluded Proposition 8 trial. -
hadmatter — 15 years ago(July 15, 2010 10:50 AM)
LOL! Another famous tactic by you losers is once someone says goodbye, you have to get the last word in and then accuse the opposition of 'running away'.
Hm, indeed. Nearly as famous as your frequent tactic of announcing that you're leaving so you don't have to support your position. Since, as we both know, it is completely unsupportable.
I've said about 3 or 4 times that these arguments have been done to death. The reproductive area of this debate has been discussed many times. There are always exceptions, and this is just another desperate attempt to make your unbelievable weak case. Yes, the exceptions here are sterile folks, older people, and couples that choose not to have children. These exceptions do not change the primary factors why marriage is between a man and woman.
The primary factors why marriage is between a man and a woman is because women were considered property which could be trades with other strong families to increase their social standing and forge bonds.
Since this is NO LONGER the primary reason that men and women marry each other, there must be a DIFFERENT reason why the contract still exists, yes? And it has nothing to do with reproduction. It's an idiotic suggestion! Reproduction is not contingent on marriage, and marriage is not contingent on reproduction. The two have NOTHING to do with each other.
Homosexuals are just 2% of the population
Care to prove that? I mean, it's not like it makes a difference, but you seem to love throwing that figure around as though it was significant.
and have zero possibility of creating a family in a homosexual union.
Duh?
That's why, excepting the 9 or 10 small countries, the world continues to have marriage exclusively between opposite genders.
You're only guessing about the reason, and you fail (as usual) to acknowledge the significance of WHICH countries have legalized same-sex marriage. It's not about size, darling.
We don't have to provide any 'reasons'. The onus is on you to supply a valid argument because you are the ones that want the law changed.
Not when you argument is that there is "NO REASON" for the government to sanction a union between members of the same gender. For this argument to be valid, there must (conversely) BE A REASON for the government to sanction a heterosexual union. If there is no such reason, then there is no such argument.
Since you are unable to do this, the laws will remain as they are.
That's what you think.
You happen to prefer your own gender and that's fine, but it isn't going to get you a marriage license.
Who says I want a marriage license? I just want the
right
. And in spite of your oft-repeated lies and obvious cognitive dissonance, I
don't
have equal rights.
I am confident that you will respond again because you have to get the last word even though you cannot win this debate.
Of course I will respond, because I am not afraid. And so far, since I have provided meaningful points while you have provided none aside from "This is how things have been and therefore this is how they shall remain!", I
am
winning this debate. In fact, anybody could win this debate if you're the only representative that the other side can conjure up. Have you got any tactics besides poking your head in, yelling "gay marriage is a scam!" and then running away before you have to hear all the reasons why you're wrong?
I am the sod-off shotgun. -
Emmywins305 — 12 years ago(November 10, 2013 07:20 PM)
Since you are unable to do this, the laws will remain as they are.
Nice try, but DOMA was just struck down. Your attempt to keep gays down through bigotry and hatred is doomed.
Tell you what, if you don't like seeing gays get married in the US, why don't you try moving to places like North Korea? There you can enjoy having the government force you into leading the life THEY see fit. -
Danusha_Goska — 15 years ago(July 12, 2010 04:52 PM)
-
Nofx67900 — 15 years ago(July 25, 2010 03:32 AM)
The question you pose isn't exactly an easy one to answer. This entire post is about Christians vs. homosexuals. Christians then will defend themselves with scriptures or opinions based on their beliefs, which in turn, offends homosexuals, and a battle occurs.
I will tell you what the probably is: Christians are their own worst enemies. I've been a christian all my life, I went to a christian high school, raised in a christian household, and been in the christian church all my night. However, I find it absolutely detestable that Christians are going out, in the name of God, and boycotting a homosexual's funeral. A human beings that was overseas, fighting for our rights to be a christian or a homosexual, who was good enough to fight and die along the sides of the other American soldiers, so why shouldn't he deserve and have the rights to a funeral of a true American hero? There is no real logical reason that a christian can give you.
This is the issue, Christians, because of how they are raised and what they believe, hold themselves higher then every other human being. They think because they are Christians, they are therefore entitled and they apparently have the right to tell people how to live their lives. After a christian is running around with a picket sign, screaming out homosexuals are going to hell, they go home and commit their own personal sins. But it isn't the same, because they're Christians. It's extremely hypocritical and disgusting. It's horrible to see how people run around, preaching about how it is their jobs to rid the world of homosexuals because "God told them too." God did not tell them to do that, they are using their religion for their own personal agenda.
As a christian, God called me to love. He called me to love everyone, not just other Christians. Now to answer the marriage question, as well as the shellfish dispute. Most Christians will tell you is it now ok to eat shellfish and pork and get tattoos and piercings and that basically Lev. and it's laws are no longer is play. They do this because when Jesus came, He lifted the law for Christians. Christians are no longer under the law, but under grace. No does that mean that Christians now have the right to go crazy and kill anyone they want, as depicted by Jesus? No of course now, because even though Jesus lifted the law, he also raised it for Christians. Before the sixth commandment, I believe, was though shall not murder. When Jesus came, He said, you shouldn't murder someone, but now if you hate someone in your heart, you have murdered them by hating them. So Jesus did away with certain laws and raised the bar on other laws.
Now marriage. Marriage is a difficult thing nowadays. Most Christians go into marriage with the attitude of " oh I love my partner sooooo much, so because I have so much love for them, God will sustain my marriage." And when that doesn't happen, they assume that God is telling them to divorce. That is a horrible assumption. For Christians, divorce shouldn't even be an option. Marriage is suppose to be a sacred promise that you make to your partner and God, that says that you will be with that person for the rest of your life, til death do you part isn't optional. But marriage isn't taken as seriously as it should be nowadays. It is spoken about in the Bible that if your spouse cheats on you, abuses you, or leaves you, then dirovce is permitted.
Now, as a Christian, I believe that all people are created equal. And that since we are all created equal, we should all have the same rights, and if someone doesn't think another person should have all the same rights, then they shouldn't count themselves any better then a nazi in WWII. Christians become very upset and defensive when someone threatens their rights as a religion group, but they don't seem to understand that they are doing the same thing to other people groups daily.
The whole thing is about respect. Do you respect other people's God given right to make their own life choices? I have several homosexual friends, who know that I'm a Christian and where I stand on these issues, they also know that I may or may not agree with some choices they make, as well as they may or may not agree with my choices I make in life. However, they do know that I respect the decisions they make in their lives. I respect their right to make the decision on how to live their lives. They know that, although I am a Christian, I am not going to start preaching to them about how homosexuality is the wrong way to go and that they are going to burn in hell, and blah blah blah. I'm going to let them live their lives, because I have no right to tell them otherwise. So as long as I respect them and their choices, and they respect me and my choices, we don't have issues.
The problem with Christians nowadays (and probably in the past also), is that they go around telling people how to live, when they themselves don't even live that way. It's horrible and extremely hypocritical. It's j -
vanguard59 — 15 years ago(August 15, 2010 08:51 PM)
08/15/10
Unless you have studied Canon Law as I have Then I suggest that you can keep quiet about matters that do not concern you, if you are NOT ROMAN CATHOLIC!
I am very tired of people spouting info. about a dogma that they DO NOT KNOW!!!
There are VERY strict lines drawn about annulment and Roman Catholics take this very seriously. So you can put away your $ signs.
I WILL NOT tollerate bigotry against Roman Catholics NO matter what form they may be!!
If you are a lapsed Catholic then go seek peace and keep your hatred to yourself!
If you are not, then again , do not spout info of which you do not know!
Just because you are over 50-ish does not mean that you are informed or intelligent!
Yes, everyone Catholic Bashing The Acceptable prejudice! -
hadmatter — 15 years ago(August 16, 2010 03:38 PM)
Unless you have studied Canon Law as I have Then I suggest that you can keep quiet about matters that do not concern you, if you are NOT ROMAN CATHOLIC!
Then tell the stupid roman catholics to keep their stupid churchy fingers out of my business.
I am very tired of people spouting info. about a dogma that they DO NOT KNOW!!!
Fascinating. I feel the same way about you holier-than-thou god types shooting your mouths off about homosexuality.
There are VERY strict lines drawn about annulment and Roman Catholics take this very seriously. So you can put away your $ signs.
Your churches are made of gold and jewels. Put away your own $ signs first, ass hole.
I WILL NOT tollerate bigotry against Roman Catholics NO matter what form they may be!!
Yeah? What are you going to do about it? Damn me?
Yes, everyone Catholic Bashing The Acceptable prejudice!
Oh, poor poor you. It must be so challenging to be in the majority.
I am the sod-off shotgun. -
vanguard59 — 15 years ago(August 16, 2010 11:27 PM)
08/17/10
Just WHAT EXACTLY is YOUR BUSINESS!
ALL of the three main religions including Orthodox Judiaism and ISLAM have dim views on homosexuality.
I am not an Iman nor a Rabbi, so study their dogma and read the Holy Qaran (look it up), and you will see what I Mean!
To the line about gold and jewels, sounds like I am dealing with a brain washed WASP! Tell me as the Queen is the head of the Anglican Church then how much of her revenue has she donated to help the poor?? What British Monarch has ever done so. This in a country where they HUNG an 11 yr. old girl for stealing a loaf of bread (19th Century) Yeah sure old Queen Vicky really cared about the little people.
I can believe that you would rely on that nonsense, as it is someone else's bilge. Do you or more importantly can you, have an origional thought. When you actually find one then write back.
I do not damn because that is the Lord's domain to judge everyone NO matter what are their sins and to get off this, your blab was about Roman Catholics and annullment NOT on homosexuality, remember, do not go for the cheap jab; otherwise you are not worthy of my time!
And Roman Catholics are in the minority, (will you learn to do some research) instead of shooting off your "pie hole" notice I did not call you an ass hole as you did me. TACKY TACKY and a cheap shot!
Oh by the way there is the antidefamation league and the Catholic league.
What is exactly a sod-off shotgun? Like I really care!! REMEMBER read theHOLY Qaran first and the Tanakh. DO not waste my time!! -
hadmatter — 15 years ago(August 18, 2010 12:06 PM)
Just WHAT EXACTLY is YOUR BUSINESS!
ALL of the three main religions including Orthodox Judiaism and ISLAM have dim views on homosexuality.
I am not an Iman nor a Rabbi, so study their dogma and read the Holy Qaran (look it up), and you will see what I Mean!
I already know. And guess what? Don't care. It matters not one bit whether your religion or any other has a "dim view" of homosexuality. MY SEXUALITY IS NOT YOUR BUSINESS unless WE ARE HAVING SEX WITH EACH OTHER.
Which, I guarantee, we are not.
To the line about gold and jewels, sounds like I am dealing with a brain washed WASP!
Or anybody that has ever seen a church, dumbass. You people are disgusting.
Tell me as the Queen is the head of the Anglican Church then how much of her revenue has she donated to help the poor?? What British Monarch has ever done so. This in a country where they HUNG an 11 yr. old girl for stealing a loaf of bread (19th Century) Yeah sure old Queen Vicky really cared about the little people.
And you think that trying to deflect attention onto somebody else's church is going to make me forget how disgusting you are?
I can believe that you would rely on that nonsense, as it is someone else's bilge.
What "nonsense"? Oh, you must mean
what I have seen with my own eyes
.
I do not damn because that is the Lord's domain to judge everyone NO matter what are their sins and to get off this, your blab was about Roman Catholics and annullment NOT on homosexuality, remember, do not go for the cheap jab; otherwise you are not worthy of my time!
No, it was about homosexuality. And I am not striving to be "worthy" of you in any way. But when you came on here whining about the poor defenseless (gigantic powerful and made-of-solid-gold) Roman Catholic Church, I had to comment.
And Roman Catholics are in the minority, (will you learn to do some research) instead of shooting off your "pie hole" notice I did not call you an ass hole as you did me. TACKY TACKY and a cheap shot!
Waah waah waah. The Catholic church is the largest religious body in the word. Christianity in general accounts for about a third of the ENTIRE POPULATION OF EARTH. You are
not
a minority. You people can fracture yourselves into five thousand denominations and cry "discrimination!" all you want, but it doesn't change the truth. You're huge, powerful, and in charge.
Not calling me an ass hole doesn't make you better than me,
or
make you less of an ass hole. Cheap shot, perhaps, but still true.
Oh by the way there is the antidefamation league and the Catholic league.
So what? Are you going to go tell on me for thinking your church and everyone who belongs to it are hypocritical monsters? Go ahead!
What is exactly a sod-off shotgun?
Go find yourself a working brain and a sense of humor. Maybe you can figure it out by yourself.
REMEMBER read theHOLY Qaran first and the Tanakh.
I've read the Qu'Ran. What's your point? Oh right, you don't have one, except to try to justify your own religion's sweeping hatred by comparing it to the sweeping hatred of other religions. But guess what? Three people beating up a defenseless gay guy in an alley are
not
more justified than one person beating up a defenseless gay guy in an alley.
I am the sod-off shotgun. -
Banjaxed08 — 15 years ago(August 29, 2010 07:05 PM)
Well, I am a Roman Catholic and I was raised to have nothing but respect and love for all people, regardless of their race, religion, or sexual orientation. I went to an all girls Catholic high school, the only one in my state, and I will attest that not even once were gay people bashed. Being gay was never taught to be a sin. The only thing concerning homosexuals that was ever labeled a sin was sex- and simply because gay sex is not life giving, and therefore premarital- we were taught that it is no more a sin than premarital sex And honestly, who on this earth, gay or straight, has NOT participated in a form of premarital sex?
I will admit that I did not read all of the arguing and negative feedback on this thread because I honestly did not care to. At the end of the day, not one person on this Earth knows if the Bible is the 100% accurate word of God (so for all of my evangelical friends out there, do not throw Bible quotes at me. I am not looking for a debate). People are not perfect, and I'm sure that there was some word-twisting going on to better fit whatever agenda was going on at the time The God I was raised to believe in is one of love, and I do not believe that He would condemn anyone for being homosexual- as we are led to believe that God creates all of us in his image- or that gay marriage is as big of a deal as people make it out to be. I'm pretty sure that at this point, God would rather see two gay people get married and honor the sacrament, rather than two heterosexual people get married and then divorce six months later, simply because they do not take it seriously, and because they take the right for granted.
Also, there is this separation of church and state thing that our country was founded upon
Anyway, I hope this has given a glimor of hope to some people who fear that all Christians are hateful, hypocritical people. -
BoogieKnight — 15 years ago(November 05, 2010 02:00 AM)
"Homosexual feelings are not a sin. Its homosexuals acts that are sinful. Let's understand that right now."
Well it depends on whether those "homosexual feelings" involve lust. How can a homo or hetero feeling that's sexual not involve lust?
And of course, lust outside of [heterosexual] marriage is a terrible horrible terrible horrible thing that one should feel terribly horribly guilty about.
Let's also understand that this is called passive aggressive behavior.
"You're saying that I'm supposed to go through life and never have any kind of relationship?"
Yeah. If you can't try harder and become heterosexual, it's really for your own good.
There are people who can actually say this and not be kidding. -
Emmywins305 — 12 years ago(November 09, 2013 09:35 PM)
Homosexual feelings are not a sin.
Its homosexuals acts that are sinful.
Let's understand that right now.
Potassium Man, you said in another thread that you find girl on girl action hot. Well that's just hypocritical. You're implying that it's okay for two girls to go at it with each other because you're into that but two men can't do the same?
And where did you get your source anyway? The BIBLE? The Bible also said it's a sin to wear a fabric of two different fibers (like polyester), touch pigskin (like football), and eat shellfish. Are THOSE sins, too? Grow up.
It's exactly attitudes like yours that make people turn against Christianity. As if straight people don't have pre-marital sex or get divorces. Where are the Christians judging them for their "sin" then? Hypocrites. -
Speed-the-plow — 14 years ago(September 07, 2011 06:15 PM)
I'm a Christian and I agree 100%. And as a gay man, that is the reason I remain a Christian. The anti-gay beep from Christians is just that: beep
To my knowledge, Jesus never spoke against homosexuality. There is evidence that the early Christians homosexually married with the blessings of the Church.
Hell, Jesus may have been a homosexual. He never married, surrounded Himself with men, and told people to hate their families, in so many words. -
philoakey — 14 years ago(April 02, 2012 08:49 AM)
I have a theory that a random guy came onto Lukeand he got offended so decided to make homosexuality an abomination. It is a man made book after all.
If all else fails you should join the Quakersthey love the gays.