Please let us know where Jesus' opinion on homosexuals is. You know, the single guy who hung out with a bunch of other dudes all the time
“Didn't you know I had to be about my Father's business?" (Luke 2:49) As his Father believed and thought, so did the Son and Holy Ghost. (He was not referring to Joseph)
But I hear they all just caught the last train for the coast--you can ask him when he gets there.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 09-12-2012).]
I am not casting stones. Live the way you want. Just don't ask for special treatment from the government, or special recognition for your sins.
How is it special treatment? Two people want to be "married" by the government. A government that is not run by religion, if you remember, right? So marriage is just a legal contract between two people... nothing more.
They want the SAME rights, that is all. It is not special treatment. Special treatment would be a tax break for being not being a hetersexual.
This just harkens back to civil rights for women and for minorities. It isn't special treatment to be treated the same.
Now, if you want, maybe we should just banish marriage from the government and everyone how wants to become partners just have to sign a contract? That would solve the issue, then there is no more religion in "marriage" (at the government level). Problem solved.
“I looked him in the eye as we were leaving,” recalls Goodridge. “And I said, ‘Governor Romney, tell me — what would you suggest I say to my 8 year-old daughter about why her mommy and her ma can’t get married because you, the governor of her state, are going to block our marriage?’”
Imagine the outrage if Romney had the audacity to tell her what to tell her daughter. Interfering with the family, etc.
His position on gay marriage aside, no president or politician should care or tell you what to tell your children. His position on gay marriage is well known. If as president he doesn't want any federal regulation over it and leaves it up to the states, it's a non-issue. I'm sure the LBGT community won't vote for him as governor.
How is it special treatment? Two people want to be "married" by the government. A government that is not run by religion, if you remember, right? So marriage is just a legal contract between two people... nothing more.
They want the SAME rights, that is all. It is not special treatment. Special treatment would be a tax break for being not being a hetersexual.
This just harkens back to civil rights for women and for minorities. It isn't special treatment to be treated the same.
Now, if you want, maybe we should just banish marriage from the government and everyone how wants to become partners just have to sign a contract? That would solve the issue, then there is no more religion in "marriage" (at the government level). Problem solved.
Marriage is a religious term. It refers to the promises made between a woman, and a man, and God and his congregation.
I don't care what individuals want to do, but I do object to using the term 'marriage' to somehow legitimize their decision.
I would prefer to call marriage 'Matrimony', actually. Nobody can defile the word by applying it to unnatural 'unions', because it means the joining of Man and Woman (mater=mother) in the holy sacrement of Wedlock. It would be a bit clumsy though, trying to say 'are you matrimonied'' or' I am matrimonised' I honestly don't think there should be ANY pecuniary advantage provided for having children. We no longer have a dire need for more people nowadays, as was the case in the 1800's/early 1900's.
Thanks for making the point that LBGT is offensive on all levels.
Way to sink the level of discourse. Hopefully you will join your wife soon, and none of this worldly stuff will offend your delicate sensitivities anymore.
Way to sink the level of discourse. Hopefully you will join your wife soon, and none of this worldly stuff will offend your delicate sensitivities anymore.
Epic fail!
[This message has been edited by olejoedad (edited 09-12-2012).]
All religions have a God. Their marriages are accepted in their cultures, who am I to object?
The government can do whatever, its of little consequence to me. I am not easily offended.
Marriage is a term used fro a man and a woman making promises to each other in the presence of God.
So how do you feel about people who divorce? I think that undermines the value of marriage much more then a couple who can share outfits getting married.
no it is not. people got married long before "the church".
Hmmmm...so who married them then Pyrth? 'Marriage is the act of the joining together of a man and a woman in the holy state of matrimony, before and in the presence of God'
[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 09-12-2012).]
So how do you feel about people who divorce? I think that undermines the value of marriage much more then a couple who can share outfits getting married.
Its a shame that promises are too easily made, and just as easily broken. Marriage, like religion, requires a great deal of faith and understanding, as well as patience. And above all, commitment.
In my own personal experience, our forty years was not always smooth, but even when things got really tense, there was still the promise that we made to each other and the faith that somehow we would survive the issue and come out better for it.
All religions have a God. Their marriages are accepted in their cultures, who am I to object?
The government can do whatever, its of little consequence to me. I am not easily offended.
Marriage is a term used fro a man and a woman making promises to each other in the presence of God.
Well, there is only one "God" but many "gods". It is your use of the word "God" that leads me to believe that you only recognize one god.
So, the government should be recognizing same-sex marriages? I could start a church for LGBT (well, there probably is one already) and I could marry people. So my religion has said they are married, so the government should recognize it, correct? Nope... there is the problem, our government still ties marriage to Christian views (for the most part). The word "marriage" should be removed and everyone should just have a civil union (for the government).
Thanks for the kind wishes. Should I look for you there?
Nope. Don't believe in it. When I die, my energy will return to the universe from whence it came. No stranger then believing in a white bearded vindictive old man in the sky.
Hmmmm...so who married them then Pyrth? 'Marriage is the act of the joining together of a man and a woman in the holy state of matrimony, before and in the presence of God'
not really.
"Although the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history, many cultures have legends concerning the origins of marriage. The way in which a marriage is conducted and its rules and ramifications has changed over time, as has the institution itself, depending on the culture or demographic of the time.[15] Various cultures have had their own theories on the origin of marriage. One example may lie in a man's need for assurance as to paternity of his children. He might therefore be willing to pay a bride price or provide for a woman in exchange for exclusive sexual access.[16] Legitimacy is the consequence of this transaction rather than its motivation. In Comanche society, married women work harder, lose sexual freedom, and do not seem to obtain any benefit from marriage.[17] But nubile women are a source of jealousy and strife in the tribe, so they are given little choice other than to get married. "In almost all societies, access to women is institutionalized in some way so as to moderate the intensity of this competition."[18] Forms of group marriage which involve more than one member of each sex, and therefore are not either polygyny or polyandry, have existed in history. However, these forms of marriage are extremely rare. Of the 250 societies reported by the American anthropologist George P. Murdock in 1949, only the Caingang of Brazil had any group marriages at all.[19]
Various marriage practices have existed throughout the world. In some societies an individual is limited to being in one such couple at a time (monogamy), while other cultures allow a male to have more than one wife (polygyny) or, less commonly, a female to have more than one husband (polyandry). Some societies also allow marriage between two males or two females. Societies frequently have other restrictions on marriage based on the ages of the participants, pre-existing kinship, and membership in religious or other social groups."
LBGT people will have to deal with God, if thats the case, when they are dead. Here in this country we are supposed to have equal rights under law and seperation of church and state. The discussion is moot when it comes to religion. There are no lbgt people asking for "special treatment", just the same rights you and i have olejoedad.
For the record my best friend in the world is transgendered... after a lifetime of paying taxes and obeying laws in this country, why should he be treated any different than a heterosexual in the eyes of the law? He's not asking to be SPECIAL, he is asking to be treated like anyone else in regards to laws that govern him, you and me.
People should not be second class citizens because of who they love or who they are attracted to. And don't give me that "next people will be marrying their dogs" crap, either, because dogs cannot sign a marriage license, cannot say I do. Marriage is an institution between to willing human beings, and is a right that should be afforded to anyone in this country who wants to be married to anyone else in this country that is willing and of age. If anyone is so worried about what God may think, maybe they should let him do his/her job and keep their noses out of the business and lives of others-including Romney.
Amyone who decided to use disparaging remarks toward lbgt people here while trying to "intelligently" debate the merits and flaws of gay marriage immediately disqualified themselves. Some people around here need to grow up, seriously.
quote
Originally posted by Formula88:
Are athiests allowed to marry? Hindus? Buddhists?
[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 09-12-2012).]
'Mommy and Ma..'???? For heaven's sake..you want to play at being Mother Nature and cheat, and produce an offspring in a manner never planned...suck it up and stop whining. Sounds like two pre-school little girls playing with their dolls, and pretending to be 'Mommy and Daddy'. IT ISN'T A GAME, producing children. And IF it is so 'protecting and supportive' of one's family...why do so many heterosexual couple never bother with it? If it costs the Tax Payer MORE to finance these people having their cake and eating it,than they are allowed for their NATURAL BORN CHILDREN, then why the HE!! should they have to fund this selfishness and deviant behaviour of others? THEY MAKE THE CHOICE...let THEM pay for it. And if they CAN'T, then DON'T FREAKING DO IT. 'Human Rights' now far exceed those that NATURE provided. ANd we wonder why the World is in the mess it IS in. A World that is AWASH with surplus Human Beings...and we are expected to fund even MORE being brought into it by un-natural means. Madness. Talk about having your cake and eating it, AND taking a bite out of everybody elses' too. Sheer unadulterated madness.
How did they "cheat"? A woman produced a daughter. She is now with a partner. What about that is cheating? How do you know it's a game? The daughter doesn't recognize something as wrong until society tells her that it's wrong. Two parents taking care of a child = two parents taking care of a child. They have just the same capacity for love, affection, intelligence, discipline, parenthood as any other human. Tax payers don't pay for homosexuals to have kids.
quote
Originally posted by ls3mach:
Brennan, doesn't LGBT go against your God?
The act of homosexuality goes against the Christian Bible, among other religions, yes.
But our country is a secular country. We have separation of church and state, though that's not in the constitution it is one of the main drivers for colonizing America. We should all have equal rights under the constitution. What religious beliefs hold after that is of no consequence, and they are allowed to believe whatever they wish as long as it doesn't harm another outside of their religion.
quote
Originally posted by fierofetish:
To a Gay, maybe...but Nature ordains otherwise
Nature wants us to procreate.
So let's just go around and f*** as many girls as we can, impregnate them, and care for the children enough to live to adulthood, where they can then leave the nest and start their own lives.
quote
Originally posted by olejoedad:
The fact that we tolerate their very existance speaks volumes as to the strength our views toward personal freedom. So now they want to be "special"?
Seems to me that God has a 'special' place for them eventually......
They don't want to be special. They want to be equal. That isn't really a hard concept. We don't "tolerate their very existance (sic)". They are people that are attracted to what they are attracted to, and besides that are the same people as we are. Your bigotry is showing.
If the government told you that your marriage that you had with your wife was now taken away, and you were no longer married, what would you think about that?
quote
Originally posted by WhiteDevil88:
I take great comfort in the fact that the generation making the rules now are going to die soon, and the next generation will see how pointless denying homosexuals the right to marry is. Sure, one or two old bigots will last into Strom Thurmond style anachronisms, but society will progress despite the best effort of reactionaries.
I would rather convince them through logic the fallacy of their arguments. I want people to have a change of heart... I don't want it to just wait until the next generation.
quote
Originally posted by olejoedad:
One of our founding principles is the freedom to worship whatever God you choose, unlike those middle eastern countries you mention.
So if we have freedom, why can't LGBT folks get married? Your beliefs aren't consistent.
quote
Originally posted by olejoedad:
No cherry-picking on this end, just a simple statement that is germaine to the original topic of this posting.
I have read Leviticus.
God's views on sodomites are mentioned throughout the Bible. He's not a fan of butt-buddies.
You are cherry-picking. You're saying that God is "not a fan of butt buddies" (), but then say that God allows us to now eat pork. Which Laws are true and which were overridden by Christ?
Not to mention, that shouldn't matter. You already said we have freedom to worship how we choose so therefore LGBT should be able to get married.
quote
Originally posted by WhiteDevil88:
True. That is why we NEED someone like Gary Johnson to take strong independent actions to save the nation financially and counter the extremists. Please make sure Gary makes it on to your states ballot, the two party system is a failure.
Romney's statements have concreted my already solidifying motion to vote for good ol' Gary.
quote
Originally posted by olejoedad:
I am not casting stones. Live the way you want. Just don't ask for special treatment from the government, or special recognition for your sins.
It isn't special treatment.
And you are casting stones. Are you kidding me? You called "them" "butt-buddies".
quote
Originally posted by olejoedad:
Thanks for making the point that LBGT is offensive on all levels.
How do they offend you?
quote
Originally posted by Formula88:
Imagine the outrage if Romney had the audacity to tell her what to tell her daughter. Interfering with the family, etc.
His position on gay marriage aside, no president or politician should care or tell you what to tell your children. His position on gay marriage is well known. If as president he doesn't want any federal regulation over it and leaves it up to the states, it's a non-issue. I'm sure the LBGT community won't vote for him as governor.
You make a good point. Perhaps either the original woman who relayed the message or just I am reading it with an undertone of complete disregard.
I understood his position on gay marriage. The comments bothered me far more than the position.
quote
Originally posted by olejoedad:
"Civil union" works for me.
But civil union doesn't work for them.
Remember Black-only bathrooms? Sure, a Black man could go to the bathroom same as a White man could. He had the freedom to excrete his wastes under the law. However, was it fair? I hope I don't need to tell you the answer to that. This is the same deal. "Sure, you can have some of the same rights as a marriage, buuuuuttttt we can't allow you that much freedom." They aren't being allowed into the White's only bathroom.
quote
Originally posted by olejoedad:
Sure.
They are all religions, they all have their own god. (The denial of a god still acknowledges the concept.)
So what about religious homosexuals, bisexuals, and trans*?
quote
Originally posted by olejoedad:
Its a shame that promises are too easily made, and just as easily broken. Marriage, like religion, requires a great deal of faith and understanding, as well as patience. And above all, commitment.
In my own personal experience, our forty years was not always smooth, but even when things got really tense, there was still the promise that we made to each other and the faith that somehow we would survive the issue and come out better for it.
That sounds much like a homosexual marriage to me.
I'll ask you one very simple question Brennan. If whatever created life wanted us to be able to have children without commitment, without two different components to provide a natural balance to the growth of a child, would we not have all been created as unisex beings...hermaphrodites? We weren't. We were created to PROCREATE with TWO parents, one of each sex, to be able to establish a balanced childhood, puberty and adulthood. NOBODY has the right to bring a child into the World without that natural balance. NOBODY. They don't even have the right to take a chance on the child turning out normal or not. Babies and young children learn far more by inate senses than direct INSTRUCTION. I know if I had been born and then raised by two women or two men, and deprived of the experience of that NATURAL sexual difference between the two parents, I would be mad as he11. Want to live and love with somebody of the same sex? Go for it.I couldn't care less. But don't expect the overtime if you don't work a full shift FIRST. What p1sses me off most is the complaint that WE are insensitive towards homosexuals..when they are even MORE so against heterosexuals and THEIR beliefs.
[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 09-12-2012).]
I'll ask you one very simple question Brennan. If whatever created life wanted us to be able to have children without commitment, without two different components to provide a natural balance to the growth of a child, would we not have all been created as unisex beings...hermaphrodites? We weren't. We were created to PROCREATE with TWO parents, one of each sex, to be able to establish a balanced childhood, puberty and adulthood. NOBODY has the right to bring a child into the World without that natural balance. NOBODY. They don't even have the right to take a chance on the child turning out normal or not. Babies and young children learn far more by inate senses than direct INSTRUCTION. I know if I had been born and then raised by two women or two men, and deprived of the experience of that NATURAL sexual difference between the two parents, I would be mad as he11. Want to live and love with somebody of the same sex? Go for it.I couldn't care less. But don't expect the overtime if you don't work a full shift FIRST. What p1sses me off most is the complaint that WE are insensitive towards homosexuals..when they are even MORE so against heterosexuals and THEIR beliefs.
I am unsure how to answer the question about creation, but as far as the children go...
I do not think that two parents of the same genders or even sex create the best environment for the child. Studies have been shown that prove having a mother and father is preferable to other scenarios.
But nobody has the perfect childhood.
It isn't going to damage a child raised by two of the same sex. It isn't ideal, but neither are single-parent homes, racist homes, no-parent homes, you name it.
We should try and create the best environment for children. But two men or two women that have been desiring a child for a long time, enough to jump through hoops to have one, are probably going to be more loving than other, less-desirable environments.
True. That is why we NEED someone like Gary Johnson to take strong independent actions to save the nation financially and counter the extremists. Please make sure Gary makes it on to your states ballot, the two party system is a failure.
as far as I know, Gary Johnson is in fact on the ballot in ALL 50 states.
someone you can actually vote FOR, instead of the wind pissing "vote against" BS. (R) & (D) can suck it.
I hope that somewhere in the next 40 days, there is some actual media exposure.......I guess stuff for another thread, eh?
I'll ask you one very simple question Brennan. If whatever created life wanted us to be able to have children without commitment, without two different components to provide a natural balance to the growth of a child, would we not have all been created as unisex beings...hermaphrodites? We weren't. We were created to PROCREATE with TWO parents, one of each sex, to be able to establish a balanced childhood, puberty and adulthood.
LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS of other animals don't mate for life. They **** n duck... The female usually raises the young alone. That's natural. Or are all these animals defying nature?
LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS of other animals don't mate for life. They **** n duck... The female usually raises the young alone. That's natural. Or are all these animals defying nature?
The complexity of raising a HUMAN CHILD is, IMHO, so unbelievably more demanding than raising a baby animal, which reaches adulthood in a matter of weeks or months,as opposed to 16-21 years in a human being, I really don't think you considered the implausability of the comparison you made TR. Most animals are so basic, compared to a human being, it would be really rather silly to even make the comparison IMHO .
Originally posted by theBDub: It isn't going to damage a child raised by two of the same sex.....
Brennan, I find the apparent conviction you have in that statement is based on emotion, and nothing more, and far from typical of your usual thought input into what you say. Just answer me this, without trying to justify your answer by quoting your ideals and kind wishes for those you consider to be being persecuted by heterosexual people...
AGAIN I ask you: WHY ARE WE REQUIRED BY NATURE TO CREATE A LIFE WITH TWO OPPOSITE SEX PEOPLE?
My beliefs are simple and uncomplicated. I believe we are created by Nature. Natural processes. If Nature managed to maintain the Earth for millions of years so successfully, are we REALLY that much smarter than Nature, that we can change Her course with impunity, and no disastrous consequences in the end? Because I believe this World will last for ever in one form or another, and unless we abide by Nature's PLAN, we will be wiped out, and maybe have damaged this Earth so completely by then, Nature will have a terrible task to put it right again. But I fully believe She WILL. Maybe not the same as ever before..but evolution and Nature will restart what we destroy, and I doubt She will be kind enough to give us a second chance, when we do so much to destroy Her.
[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 09-12-2012).]
The complexity of raising a HUMAN CHILD is, IMHO, so unbelievably more demanding than raising a baby animal, which reaches adulthood in a matter of weeks or months,as opposed to 16-21 years in a human being, I really don't think you considered the implausability of the comparison you made TR. Most animals are so basic, compared to a human being, it would be really rather silly to even make the comparison IMHO .
I did consider it, but I wanted you to specifically state it so the contradiction was clear. So, we should use nature as an example when convenient, but ignore nature when we need to in order to support the anti-gay sentiment. Also, humans are comparable to other animals and their sexuality when the comparison supports your opinion, but are too complex to be comparable otherwise. I get it.
To the Christian folk... Does your God hate heterosexual couples who engage in butt sex? or just the gays? Guilty minds want to know...
Well if im remembering my Bible correctly, didnt God originally ONLY put MAN on the Earth ? I dont know what his plan for reproduction was with only men. If you believe in it, Eve was the first woman and she was put on Earth as an afterthought...more or less originally just to be a companion.
Romney's statements have concreted my already solidifying motion to vote for good ol' Gary. .
Are you joking or stupid?
quote
Originally posted by Red88FF:
So if true, both candidates are NOT pro gay whatso ever. The Obummer only recently changed his “official” position in hopes of votes. I think that most don’t give a crap one way or the other.
Brennan, I find the apparent conviction you have in that statement is based on emotion, and nothing more, and far from typical of your usual thought input into what you say. Just answer me this, without trying to justify your answer by quoting your ideals and kind wishes for those you consider to be being persecuted by heterosexual people...
AGAIN I ask you: WHY ARE WE REQUIRED BY NATURE TO CREATE A LIFE WITH TWO OPPOSITE SEX PEOPLE?
My beliefs are simple and uncomplicated. I believe we are created by Nature. Natural processes. If Nature managed to maintain the Earth for millions of years so successfully, are we REALLY that much smarter than Nature, that we can change Her course with impunity, and no disastrous consequences in the end? Because I believe this World will last for ever in one form or another, and unless we abide by Nature's PLAN, we will be wiped out, and maybe have damaged this Earth so completely by then, Nature will have a terrible task to put it right again. But I fully believe She WILL. Maybe not the same as ever before..but evolution and Nature will restart what we destroy, and I doubt She will be kind enough to give us a second chance, when we do so much to destroy Her.
Because that's how we evolved. You completely glazed over the rest of my post, which clearly states why I believe the way I believe. That yes, it's not the ideal environment, but it's no worse than anything else.
What makes you think that it will be detrimental to the child? You keep talking about nature's plan as if nature is a sentient being. It isn't... so there is no plan there. And I highly doubt if nature is a sentient being, that it cares how a child was raised.
quote
Originally posted by Red88FF:
Are you joking or stupid?
Umm, last time I checked, Obama's first name is Barack. Romney's is Mitt. I said Gary.
Try again.
[This message has been edited by theBDub (edited 09-12-2012).]