Yet Another Homosexual Marriage Thread

Originally posted by okinrus
Using that logic, the few people who have relationships with animals have a right to marry their dog, cat or whatever.
As pointed out before
1) we are talking about the same species
2) we are talking about consent

That's like me saying that black people DO have the right to get married, just not to members of the same race.


We just go by the definition of marriage.
Fine... they can create a new word called morriage which replaces 'man and women' with '2 people'... but gets the same rights under the law.

When you argue over definition, you are simply shifting the issue. Basically, you think homosexual marriages are wrong, and will not support them. That does not give you or anybody else the right to take rights away from them anymore then they have the right to outlaw heterosexual marriage because it can lead to overpopulation.

If you have a good non-religious reason for you're belief then give it. Otherwise shut it, because I could care less what your specific holy book says.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"We can use religion to find moral basis in society and still have seperation of church and state. If we look at something simple such as why we laws against stealing, it is obviously because of religion. Even an apparent moral basis such as "do not harm others" does not work. At some point we have to use undefined and irrational beliefs anyways. "

So, why use your irrational undefined beliefs? Why not ours? You know, the poeple who think that homosexual marriage is ok?

"There freedom is deciding for themselves what is moral and right. It is not the goverments job to layout rational for what is moral."

Fine, so lets stop the gvt supporting heterosexual marriages, in fact lets get the gvt out of the marriage business altogether.


"Under the consitution, we are allowed to revolt against the goverment if it is a just cause. The goverment is not an end all."

Just cause? Who's just cause? How about the just cause of the homosexuals? would you object if the gvt was overthrown by them? And where in the constitution? And by saying the gvt is not an end all, you are admitting it can be changed and so on, so why not change it to give homosexual couples equal marriage rights?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

yes but bells was talking only about condoms, not about planned parenthood, and she set aside a seperate comment about abortion for you to address. So please quit being as slippery as an eel, an address Bells comments directly, don't go constructing a straw man argument, or just going off on whatever wild tangent you feel like ranting about; if you wanted to do that you can start your own thread.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well yes, of course I'm going to agree to let majority rule on this. However you have no right to accuse politicians who do not support homosexual marriage, but do support civil unions, as bigots. This is the main point that I've been trying to make in this thread.

This might be the best solution, but really why should we revamp the whole system? I would be very cautious in this time, because the divorse rates are already rising. The institution does not need another reason for tearing it down.

 

poor poor okinrus, never got a blow job?

i pitty you, they are REALLY nice

have you ever walked in on your parents at all?

luckly nither have i but my GF has and hates it, does that mean that they shouldnt be alowed to have sex at all?

bit unfair there

and if you belive god doesnt exist?

of corse MY god teaches tolerance not hatred, like your god

 

The...penis didn't evolve to serve a sexual function?
What the bloody hell is it there for? Stirring coffee? I'm sure it's nice being able to piss standing up, but somehow that doesn't seem to quite cover it.
Okinrus, love, you're whacked.

 

If someone does not serve God then he will be cut off and thrown into the flames. The mouth is designed for eating not ingesting someone else's bodily fluids. And the anus was designed for expiation of waste not insertion of another's penis.

If they were not married then it is fair that they would never have sex. I do not think that I will ever have sex, is life and God unfair to me? No

You will still have to answer to him. Those who do not know the will of God but acted in manner fiting a severe beating will be beated lightly.

God does not tolerate sin and hates sin. My God also does not teach us hatred but true <a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html">love</a>. I have to oppose homosexual marriage because I love homosexuals. A agreement and contratract to live in lust and death is a contract with the devil.

 

Well I'll tell you, that post only confirms Xev's assessment of your state of mental health.

Not only am I unaware of any evidence for the existence of any god, I could never worship an invisible cloud being that feels that infinite torture is a justifiable punishment for wiggling your wienie in another mans ass. I think that if you (as a deity) found it distasteful, giving their car a flat tire would be a fitting punishment.

And fundies wonder why no one invites them to parties.

Church Group Offers Homosexual New Life In Closet

 

Why do you post a site making fun of homosexuals who struggle with sin? I don't make fun of anyone and I do not condemn anyone. All I do is just say what I think is true.

 

It is not making fun of gays. It is making fun of Christians, at least those that think being gay is wrong.

How could you possibly miss the point?

 

There are homosexuals who have become straight and married. This is what I meant by homosexuals.

 

okinrus:

Acceptable price.

You could as easily argue that the penis and vagina were "designed" for the elimination of urine. As Augustine put it, we are born between urine and faeces.
Does this invalidate sex in the missionary position?

Why does anyone need to be beaten? Is God so petty that he cannot abide disobedience?

 

Human life would not exist without sex. Within marriage sex fullfills the purpose of raising a family. Outside of marriage it is sinful.

If there was "Why" above God, then God would not be all-powerful. However we should be able to see why God does something because he is manifested in his creation. If we steal, we expect the theif to pay what he stole back. In the same way God must punish sin either in this life or the next. This does not necessarly have to be eternally, but our concience demands this punishement and retribution. As to eternal life, how can God give eternal life to someone who does not choose it? I do not know if hell will be all fire. Maybe God will let those in hell feel lust, anger, and all of the evil emotions in hell for eternity. I do not believe that all homosexuals will go to hell either. I just feel that it's wrong and should not be promoted.

 

Says who? Sorry Oki, but I don't think I was ever issued an owners manual for the human body (and no I'm not talking about Dianetics, that's another thread all together). Why do you think that these are specifically what these things were "Designed" for? There's no scientific basis for this opinion, just the fact that it fits in line with your own biases, no doubt of intelligent design (which is also unsupported) and in this particular instance your desire to see homosexuals as being wrong.

It is my observation that sodomy works pretty damn well and is a lot of fun. The pieces fit and when they slide together it's a good ol' time.

Well, believe it or not people have sex outside of marriage all the time. I don't know why you feel you'll never have sex, you say it with a rather depressing certainty. . . some sort of deformity or ailment, you know, beside the obvious one?

Why do you think that all homosexuals live in lust? And live in death. . . what the hell does that mean? You do know the difference between a homosexual and the undead, don't you?

 

I believe the intent was to show what a sham it is, and to horrify us with the idiologies that these people have been forced to accept because aparently they are willing to take the law of religion over objective reality.

 

Well I don't think that there's much of a movement to promote homosexuality. It's not an evangelical practice, we aren't trying to win converts. Believe it or not, some denominations are quite happy just being accepted, and otherwise left alone.

 

There are medical complications beyond the usual stds. Because such a high percentage of the gay community has aids, even with a condom it's a big risk to take.

I'm actually very shy when not on message boards. Anyways I offend most woman I speak to.

Well I don't know. However the act of sex between two men does not serve any purpose. It is not an act of love, but of pleasure. So because it does not always have the consequences of pregancy it often becomes as lethal as drug such as cocaine. I use death to mean spirtual death.

I don't think it's always a sham. There have been a few cases. Part of the problem is that secular society does not give them the same publicity as the "born gay" movement. Also it is confusing what God meant by the law given in the old testament. Did he expect people born gay to become celibrate or marry into the opposite sex?

I don't think so. The movement attempts at making people endorse this activity as normal. They've done a pretty good job. If you go back just 50 years, your see a huge difference in opinion. However there has not been any huge medical break throughs at proving that gays are born gay.

 

im just wondering how you would feel to know that i kiss my GF with my MOUTH

shock horor but when you kiss you swollow there saliva

LOVE to see you tell everyone that kissing is the devil

there is also no medical proof that people are born liking short people, or blonds but they do. Get to the point