Proof Gay Marriage is Wrong

Off Topic
101

[quote]xtolgax wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
xtolgax wrote:
…I can handle the extreme arguments on both sides just fine…beliefs are beliefs and they are hard to change.

but when you come out here and start spewing PURE BULLSHIT I have to call you on it.

THE STATISTICS? show me the statistics. I want the academic proof that gays are more sexually active than straight people. I want the proof that they are more likely to spread disease. WHERE ARE YOUR STAGGERING STATISTICS?

if there is a god, you will either have a gay child, or you will have the shit kicked out of you by a 150 pound man in stilletos.

Wow, not only are you not very bright, you are also an ass.

If you are not aware that sexually active gay young men are statistically far more promiscuous compared to sexually active straight young men then you are ill informed and likely do not know any gay people.

I have gay friends. One of my best friends is HIV positive. His stories of sexual activity are stunning.

I suggest you either take a class in human sexuality or improve your personality so you can make some gay friends and you can get the scoop from them.

[i]Gay author Gabriel Rotello notes the perspective of many gays that "Gay liberation was founded . . . on a ‘sexual brotherhood of promiscuity,’ and any abandonment of that promiscuity would amount to a ‘communal betrayal of gargantuan proportions.’"4 Rotello’s perception of gay promiscuity, which he criticizes, is consistent with survey results. A far-ranging study of homosexual men published in 1978 revealed that 75 percent of self-identified, white, gay men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250- 499; 15 percent claimed 500-999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners.5By 1984, after the AIDS epidemic had taken hold, homosexual men were reportedly curtailing promiscuity, but not by much. Instead of more than 6 partners per month in 1982, the average non-monogamous respondent in San Francisco reported having about 4 partners per month in 1984.6

In more recent years, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control has reported an upswing in promiscuity, at least among young homosexual men in San Francisco. From 1994 to 1997, the percentage of homosexual men reporting multiple partners and unprotected anal sex rose from 23.6 percent to 33.3 percent, with the largest increase among men under 25.7 Despite its continuing incurability, AIDS no longer seems to deter individuals from engaging in promiscuous gay sex.8

The data relating to gay promiscuity were obtained from self-identified gay men. Some advocates argue that the average would be lower if closeted homosexuals were included in the statistics.9 That is likely true, according to data obtained in a 2000 survey in Australia that tracked whether men who had sex with men were associated with the gay community. Men who were associated with the gay community were nearly four times as likely to have had more than 50 sex partners in the six months preceding the survey as men who were not associated with the gay community.10 This may imply that it is riskier to be “out” than “closeted.” Adopting a gay identity may create more pressure to be promiscuous and to be so with a cohort of other more promiscuous partners. [/i]

I am amazed that someone can find ill-informed opinion acceptable, but when confronted by simple facts they get their panties in a bunch.

Now put on your stilettos and come on over if you want to kick my ass.

an ass, I am. very bright, that I am too.

you are informed on the subject because you have gay friends? that is the ultimate homophobe response. just like “I’m not racist, I have 3 black friends.” and not like it matters, but I know several gay people (probably upwards of 100 or so), so I guess they failed to see my deficient personality. Now, contrary to popular belief, none of them tried to have sex with me, despite their raging sex drives, such perverts they are…and, even more shockingly, none of them were runnign trains on each other. unlike you, I don’t try to pass off what I’ve seen with my own two eyes as statistical evidence, but it is what i’ve seen.

as for needing to take a class on sexuality…welp, already did that too, and it reaffirmed what I already had suspected was true: gay people and straight people are both equally fucking horny.

are the numbers you cite shocking? sure they are…but I could provide you with the same numbers given the right sized heterosexual group to survey.

the bottom line is, I usually hold other peoples views in high regard,even when i disagree with them. in some cases like yours, where your life and the babble that arises from it are polluting my planet, I can’t bring myself to have any respect for your sensationalist, bullshit views. it’s even worse when you try to condescend to me…I assure you, whatever bible college you went to doesn’t step to my education, academically or otherwise.

if you’re really encouraging it, I will gladly put on a pair of fucking stilletos and give you a reacharound…cause we both know that’s what you really want.[/quote]

You ask for stats, I give them to you.

You claim you took a human sexuality class, it is obvious you didn’t pay attention.

You claim to have a better education, perhaps. I have a BS in Chem Eng. I have no interest in wasting excess time in school obtaining a higher degree.

Your assumption that I went to a bible college or that I even practice religion makes me suspect your education is not all you think it is.

Perhaps you should have learned to never assume. It makes an ASS out of U and me. In this case it is mostly you.

And as to your homosexual desires, they don’t bother me a bit. I just strongly urge you to practice safe sex and try some form of monogamy. Hell, I even support civil unions for you and whatever poor guy you call your partner.

102

No, just unnatural or contrary to all major religions in the world and contrary to Darwin’s survival of the fittest theory.

Like legalizing drugs in Amsterdam has caused more addicts ? fact!

How about people wanting to marry little kids or children under 18yrs? It is already the request of the Gay lobby to reduce the age of statutory rape. So your sarcasm may be a little less sarcastic than you realize.

Good point. And though all those changes it has been maintained that marriage is between a man and woman.

The fact that some people do not treat the institution of marriage with respect doesn’t change the sacredness of marriage. It’s like burning the flag ? it doesn’t change what the flag stands for and just makes whoever is doing it look like idiots.

Nowhere has marriage ever been deemed only for procreation. But heterosexual marriage does support propagation of the species, and unions between same sex does not.

I have no stats on this, but what I have seen is gay parents with straight kids. Guess the kids learned from their parents of what NOT to do. Good job parents!

Marriage originated as a religious institution. If homo’s want to have a union, fine. Just don’t call it marriage.

There are many social studies that demonstrate a clear benefit from having both a male and female parent.

They wish! No, if gay marriage was allowed the mainstream society would still view it as wrong and deviant and gay’s would still not be accepted. No matter how hard you try few will ever accept Adam and Eve becoming Adam and Steve!

103

[quote]mica617 wrote:
I love how everyone gets on these forums and tells everyone EXACTLY how they are completely right and others are completely wrong. I’ve got news for you- the only way ANY of us (self included) are going to know the full truth and answers is AFTER we die. I’m not certain, but I believe that it will be pretty hard to post on internet forums at that point.

I believe what I believe. If you must know, I am a Christian. I don’t agree with homosexuality, but know a few gay people and care deeply about them. I hope that they change their ways, but if not, that is THEIR choice- not mine. I hate the sin and NOT the sinner (that’s in the Bible, folks). If they are right, fine. If they are wrong and I’m right, then it’s their soul that will suffer.

Just like the Christian/athiest arguement. If I’m right, it’s mansions, streets of gold, and Heaven for me. If I’m wrong, I’m only out a few tithe checks (that went to good purposes), and I didn’t do a few people wrong when my conscience over-rode my worldly desires. Either way, (yay church!) good was accomplished.

I have no trouble expressing my beliefs to people that believe otherwise, but I won’t chastize or berate people for holding their beliefs (you know, that whole “judge not” thing- He probably meant that, as well).

As to the arguement of whether Sodom and Gemorrha was due to homosexuality or “other” (my belief is “all of the above”), again, the only people who know are dead and won’t be posting anytime soon (except GhostWolf). What I DO know, is that the Bible does state that every man in those cities believed in their hearts that what they were doing wasn’t wrong, yet in God’s eyes it was. Just something to think about the next time people want to tell people exactly how God feels about something. [/quote]

Nice post. I don’t agree with all of it, but it was well said and reasonable.

104

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
You claim to have a better education, perhaps. I have a BS in Chem Eng. I have no interest in wasting excess time in school obtaining a higher degree.
[/quote]

You have a BS in Chemical Engineering? That’s impressive, i’m pursuing my BS in Chemical and Biological Engineering right now, and it’s very hard. Good job.

Here’s an article about homosexuality and the Bible.

The Bible Condemns Homosexuality

The organization Wisconsin Christians United (WCU) states that its primary mission is to educate people about the sin of homosexuality and the agenda of the homosexual movement. In the following selection the WCU argues that many scriptures in the Bible clearly and repeatedly denounce all homosexual acts. Because God condemns sexual acts other than those between married, heterosexual couples, says the WCU, homosexual acts must be outlawed. If people capitulate to homosexuals in the name of “tolerance” and “diversity,” they put themselves and society in danger of being severely judged by God.

Source Database: Contemporary Issues Companion: Gays and Lesbians

Table of Contents: Further Readings | Source Citation

The Bible, Old Testament and New, has much to say about homosexual acts such as sodomy. The Bible is clear that God has declared such acts to be sin. For instance, God calls the homosexual acts committed by the men of Sodom “very grievous” (Gen. 18:20). He also calls those perverse sexual acts “filthy,” “wicked,” “ungodly,” and “unlawful” (II Peter 2:6-8). In the book of Jude, verse 7, God explains that the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for “fornication” with “strange flesh.” In this, God contrasts homosexual sex acts with sexual relations between one man and one woman in His created, holy institution of marriage where the two become “one flesh” (Gen. 2:24). God has forbidden and cursed all fornication, the joining of human beings as “one flesh” in a sexual union outside of marriage (I Cor. 6:9-11). In I Corinthians 6:15-20, He condemns the sexual acts men commit with women prostitutes because the two become “one flesh” outside of marriage. Homosexual acts are especially evil in that they are “fornication … [with] strange flesh.”

Throughout the Holy Scriptures, the homosexual wickedness of Sodom is referred to and used as a sort of benchmark for evil. Of course, because the Scriptures use the phrase to know when speaking of that famous incident when a crowd of sodomites demanded to have sex with two men visitors staying in Sodom, some have tried to say the sodomites only wanted to get acquainted with those visitors, who were in reality angels! This is ridiculously poor biblical scholarship. The Hebrew verb yada, which translates to the English verb to know is used in several scriptural contexts, including to denote sexual intercourse as in Genesis 4:1: “And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain…” No, the sodomites attempting to break down Lot’s door did not simply want to shake hands with his visitors! That is as foolish as saying that Sodom was destroyed because its inhabitants did not care for the poor! That particular claim is founded in a distortion of Ezekiel 16:48-50. In this biblical passage, God’s people were being warned that they were acting worse than the people of Sodom had by the very fact that they were God’s chosen people and yet were committing abominable sins! The verses contain a short chronological account of how the citizens of Sodom, which was located in a “well watered” area, became lazy and selfish in prosperity. Eventually, they also became “haughty” and committed “abomination,” a reference to sodomy and other homosexual acts. At that point, God judged and destroyed the town. Yes, the citizens of Sodom were selfish, and that was wrong. However, Sodom was clearly destroyed by God because it had become a sodomite culture.

Still, some pro-homosexual champions claim the Bible does not condemn homosexual acts. Yet, it does so from cover to cover. The Bible condemns homosexual acts in the strongest of terms and even by describing the acts themselves, such as in Leviticus 18:22: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 both graphically forbid sexual acts between two men. Romans 1:26 forbids sexual acts between two women, labeling “lesbianism” unnatural, saying that women who do those things “change” the natural for that which is “against nature.” So much for the “born that way” argument. Romans 1:27 condemns sexual acts between men and men. Verse twenty-seven begins with “And likewise also the men…” I Corinthians 6:9-11 is a warning against the deception that one can live in open rebellion to God’s law and still be a Christian headed for heaven. In that passage, sodomites are accurately and plainly called “abusers of themselves with mankind.” I Timothy 1:8-11 instructs on the lawful use of the law to punish persons who commit acts such as murder, perjury, and sodomy. Here homosexuals are graphically described as “them that defile themselves with mankind.” Both of those descriptive phrases, like all New Testament references to those guilty of committing sodomy, are faithfully translated from the word arsenokoites, the Greek word which describes homosexual sex acts. Greek was the language in which the New Testament was originally written. Of course, until recent times, no one attempted to claim that the Bible does not condemn and outlaw homosexual sex. That may be in part because one must play the part of a fool to do so (Rom. 1:22).

Misguided Justifications of Homosexuality

Consider for a moment a few more of the desperate excuses which have been concocted of late to justify sodomy and other homosexual acts. There are some who smugly overlook all the biblical condemnations and prohibitions of homosexual acts other than those occurring in the book of Leviticus where those acts are called “abomination.” They then state, “So what if God calls homosexual acts an abomination in the Bible; He also calls the eating of shellfish an ‘abomination.’” Of course, these people may or may not realize that the ban on eating of shellfish was part of the Mosaic dietary law which was set aside by God when Jesus Christ instituted a new covenant through His shed blood (Luke 22:20). They also may be ignorant of the fact that the word rendered abomination in the Old Testament comes from six different closely related Hebrew words. When the Bible says that eating shellfish is an abomination under the Mosaic dietary rules, abomination in that case is rendered from the Hebrew word sheqets, which means filthy. Under the Mosaic dietary laws, the Hebrews were to consider shellfish filthy, that is unclean, food. On the other hand, the Hebrew word which describes homosexual acts is toebah. Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (c.1984) accurately states that toebah “… defines something or someone as essentially unique in the sense of being ‘dangerous,’ ‘sinister,’ and ‘repulsive.’…” The Bible tells us that God judges sodomy to be toebah.

When it comes to those two verses in the book of Leviticus which condemn men sodomizing each other, there are some homosexual apologists who disingenuously state that those verses only condemn “cultic sexual acts between men” but that those verses do not condemn “loving gay relationships.” That particular argument goes up in smoke rather quickly in light of the rest of the Bible and also when one considers that the Leviticus prohibitions on homosexual acts are smack dab in the middle of prohibitions on other perverted sexual behavior such as bestiality and incest. If God is only condemning “cultic homosexual acts” in the Leviticus passages, then it would follow that He is also only condemning “cultic sex with animals” and “cultic incest.” Of course, there is no such thing as legitimate sexual relations between a person and an animal or between a parent and a child anymore than sexual relations between man and man or woman and woman are legitimate. God, in His Word, condemns all sexual activity other than that between a man and a woman in the holy estate of matrimony.

As already noted, God’s Word is crystal clear and extremely strong in the condemnation of homosexual acts. In Judges 19:22, homosexuals are referred to as “sons of Belial”; and in Judges 20:13, they are called “children of Belial.” The word Belial denotes individuals who are ungodly and wicked. That is exactly how God views those who engage in homosexual acts.

So it is true; from cover to cover, the Word of God condemns homosexual acts such as sodomy. This should not be surprising since those acts are a complete repudiation of God’s created order and represent a graphic rebellion against the Creator and Lawgiver of the universe. Homosexual acts go even beyond the sin which “is common to man” (I Cor. 10:13) and launch off into sin which is “unnatural” (Rom. 1:26-27). Consequently, homosexual acts are incredibly destructive to the individual who commits them (Rom. 1:27-28, Gal. 6:7) and to the nation which allows and condones them. With regard to the latter, God’s Word has made it clear He will judge and destroy a nation which allows homosexual acts.

It may be popular in today’s culture to defend and promote sexual perversion in the name of “tolerance” and “diversity”; but the truth is, God hates such acts and judges them severely. Homosexuals do not need, and must not be given, encouragement to continue in their destructive, sinful behavior. In accordance with the “Laws of Nature’s God” (Declaration of Independence), homosexuals acts must be recriminalized by the civil government (I Tim. 1:8-11, Rom. 13:4). Upholding true law in such a way is also showing true love. Ecclesiastes 8:11: “Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.” Homosexuals should be told that they, as all sinners, are lost and headed for hell unless they repent, believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and are saved (Rom. 10:13). Christians must stand against the New Sodom which has sprung up in our midst. At the same time, we must share the gospel with the sodomites and pray that some will be born again and justified by faith in Jesus Christ (Jn. 3:3, I Cor. 6:11). Now you know what God’s revealed Word, the Bible, says about homosexual acts. For your own sake, I hope that you will not try to change the meaning of His words or add to them. Proverbs 30:6: “Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.”

Source Citation: “The Bible Condemns Homosexuality” by Wisconsin Christians United. Gays and Lesbians. Kate Burns, Ed. Contemporary Issues Companion Series. Greenhaven, 2005. Wisconsin Christians United, “What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality,” www.wcuweb.com, 2004. Copyright ? 2004 by Wisconsin Christians United. Reproduced by permission.
Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. 28 October 2005
http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/OVRC

105

[quote]Lorisco wrote:

  1. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

No, just unnatural or contrary to all major religions in the world and contrary to Darwin’s survival of the fittest theory.

  1. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

Like legalizing drugs in Amsterdam has caused more addicts ? fact!

  1. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

How about people wanting to marry little kids or children under 18yrs? It is already the request of the Gay lobby to reduce the age of statutory rape. So your sarcasm may be a little less sarcastic than you realize.

  1. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

Good point. And though all those changes it has been maintained that marriage is between a man and woman.

  1. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

The fact that some people do not treat the institution of marriage with respect doesn’t change the sacredness of marriage. It’s like burning the flag ? it doesn’t change what the flag stands for and just makes whoever is doing it look like idiots.

  1. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.

Nowhere has marriage ever been deemed only for procreation. But heterosexual marriage does support propagation of the species, and unions between same sex does not.

  1. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

I have no stats on this, but what I have seen is gay parents with straight kids. Guess the kids learned from their parents of what NOT to do. Good job parents!

  1. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.

Marriage originated as a religious institution. If homo’s want to have a union, fine. Just don’t call it marriage.

  1. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

There are many social studies that demonstrate a clear benefit from having both a male and female parent.

  1. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

They wish! No, if gay marriage was allowed the mainstream society would still view it as wrong and deviant and gay’s would still not be accepted. No matter how hard you try few will ever accept Adam and Eve becoming Adam and Steve!

[/quote]

Ouch. Score one for the bigots. Lorisco: 1 Gays: 0.

Tool.

106

[quote]Lorisco wrote:

  1. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

No, just unnatural or contrary to all major religions in the world and contrary to Darwin’s survival of the fittest theory.

  1. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

Like legalizing drugs in Amsterdam has caused more addicts ? fact!

  1. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

How about people wanting to marry little kids or children under 18yrs? It is already the request of the Gay lobby to reduce the age of statutory rape. So your sarcasm may be a little less sarcastic than you realize.

  1. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

Good point. And though all those changes it has been maintained that marriage is between a man and woman.

  1. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

The fact that some people do not treat the institution of marriage with respect doesn’t change the sacredness of marriage. It’s like burning the flag ? it doesn’t change what the flag stands for and just makes whoever is doing it look like idiots.

  1. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.

Nowhere has marriage ever been deemed only for procreation. But heterosexual marriage does support propagation of the species, and unions between same sex does not.

  1. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

I have no stats on this, but what I have seen is gay parents with straight kids. Guess the kids learned from their parents of what NOT to do. Good job parents!

  1. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.

Marriage originated as a religious institution. If homo’s want to have a union, fine. Just don’t call it marriage.

  1. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

There are many social studies that demonstrate a clear benefit from having both a male and female parent.

  1. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

They wish! No, if gay marriage was allowed the mainstream society would still view it as wrong and deviant and gay’s would still not be accepted. No matter how hard you try few will ever accept Adam and Eve becoming Adam and Steve!

[/quote]

Lorisco , you are a fucking idiot. Didn’t you understand all the sarcasm?

[quote]

No, just unnatural or contrary to all major religions in the world and contrary to Darwin’s survival of the fittest theory. [/quote]

Darwin’s survival of the fittest theory has quite a bit of holes that havn’t been explained yet.

Well if all religions preach this, and all religions believe in different gods, then someone’s gotta be wrong.

[quote]
Like legalizing drugs in Amsterdam has caused more addicts ? fact! [/quote]

That has no correlation. You’re a fucktard.

And it’s not the homosexual’s fact that many straights are accused of being pedafiles. Moron.

You missed the sarcasm again. Nice.

[quote]
The fact that some people do not treat the institution of marriage with respect doesn’t change the sacredness of marriage. It’s like burning the flag ? it doesn’t change what the flag stands for and just makes whoever is doing it look like idiots.[/quote]

What’s so bloody sacred about it? You get to place a ring around another female’s finger? The only thing that symbolizies that is the actual sex RITUAL again. (Think about the ring finger enters the ring.) The only reason you think it’s sacred is because Nun Jesse said so.

I don’t think old people should marrry. It’s not sacred. What is it deemed for? Union of soul? Please. It’s all about the sex and cash these days. woot.

[quote]
I have no stats on this, but what I have seen is gay parents with straight kids. Guess the kids learned from their parents of what NOT to do. Good job parents! [/quote]

Well if you were raised by a dog. And you didn’t grow up to be a dog, it looks like you learned WHAT not to be. Hmmm. Perhaps it’s genetic? Fuckhead.

[quote]
Marriage originated as a religious institution. If homo’s want to have a union, fine. Just don’t call it marriage.[/quote]

Yeah. It might offend God. He might have to chase all gays with a thunderbolt. Cmon here little gay ducky. BAM. Got you now bitch!

[quote]
There are many social studies that demonstrate a clear benefit from having both a male and female parent. [/quote]

Hey SHITHEAD. You have a GREAT knack for stating the FUCKING obvious. NO SHIT, it’s great to have TWO PARENTS.

If you had ONE parent raising you, it’s HARDER. Why? Because the SINGLE (AS IN ONE) parent often has a HARD time finicially.

It’s better to have TWO PARENTS (same sex/or different) than being in an ADOPTION home. WITH ZERO (AS IN THE BIG 0 PARENTS.)

[quote]
They wish! No, if gay marriage was allowed the mainstream society would still view it as wrong and deviant and gay’s would still not be accepted. No matter how hard you try few will ever accept Adam and Eve becoming Adam and Steve! [/quote]

Don’t you love those witty idiots? They LOVE LOVE to steal the Adam and Steve joke and put it in. Hey, it was like funny … about 5 years ago. For the audience here, that’s probably 10 years ago.

Do you hate black people? Or more specifically, do you hate it when black marry whites? Because I think you would. You’re the type that would ask God to rain hellfire on them.

And actually, the tolerance for homosexuals is increasing every year. Five years ago, this thread wouldn’t even exist without Charming Conservative Catholics (CCC for your retardation; reminds me of the KKK) winning.

Like it or not, homosexuals still have the same rights as all of us.

107

[quote]harris447 wrote:
10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong
[/quote]
My rebuttal, 11 Reasons Gay Marriage Proponents Are Right.

Being gay is unnatural, but useful. Everyone should equate sexual orientation with vision, polymer materials, and HVAC.

Because being gay is JUST like being tall. Wanna know if someone’s gay? Just look at them! Tall people could pass themselves off as short people 99% of the time.

Legalizing gay marriage will actually discourage people from moving to ammend legislation to accommodate their “naturally predisposed tendencies”.

Gay and “alternative marriages” have been legal and worked well. Especially because it’s hard to intrinsically discriminate against them based on appearances.

Straight marriages don’t work, so the government should force its denizens to recognize gay marriages.

Gay marriages are discriminated against solely because of their reproductive capacity. The government should recognize all marriages regardless of reproductive intent, capacity, or consequence. Except siblings and family, unless they’re gay, but sexual orientation shouldn’t matter.

Children grow up normal and successful all the time we should allow people to imped… Wait, gay parents can raise their children any way they want to.

Gay marriage is supported by many, many, many religions and is extremely popular. It’s a wonder out democratic federal republic hasn’t caught on yet.

Society embrace and encourage gay marriages as well as single parent families so that gay paren… Wait, gay parents can STILL raise their children any way they want.

Gay marriage will have no affect on society and if it does, society will weather them well, just like prohibition, the labor movement, women’s rights, and slavery.

I love straw men (even the gay ones).

108
  1. Civil unions are a ‘separate but equal’ copout, gay marriage and straight marriage should be the exact same thing (except for the whole same/opposite sexual behavior part).
109

I have two aunties who have been together since before I was born. They should be able to be married. Their union has outlasted mostly everybody’s marriages, even longer than many people my age who are on their second, third marriages! Just because a couple is heterosexual doesn’t mean their relationship is more healthy than a gay couple’s.

110

[quote]chinadoll wrote:
I have two aunties who have been together since before I was born. They should be able to be married. Their union has outlasted mostly everybody’s marriages, even longer than many people my age who are on their second, third marriages! Just because a couple is heterosexual doesn’t mean their relationship is more healthy than a gay couple’s. [/quote]

So are you saying that just because homosexual marriages tend to last longer, that it is ok for them to be married?

111

homosexuality in humans is a biological occurance.
in most cases homosexual men will respond to the pheromones of other men.
Alos the nueral patterns durring this response will resemble closely the patterns of a heterosexual female responding to a male.
Since no studies have been done (as far as i’m aware) on children or adolescents monitoring these responses, it becomes dificult to determine whether there is some genetic predisposition to homosexuality.
my beleif is that it’s an issue of timing between the phycological experience and biochemical changes.
for example:
an 8 y/o male mentally recognizes the existence of sex allready having significantly more testosterone than estrogen(genetic factor) and…
a 10 y/o male mentally recognizes the existence of sex having much lost much less estrogen(as a ratio)
my idea is that the 8 y/o will more freely associate sex with females because he allready has had some pheromone response from females(because of higher test levels)
the 10 y/o on the other hand may develope the opposite pheromone responses if much of his time is spent with members of the same sex. and since girls had Kuties(?spelling)back then the dominant presence of males is common.

having drawn these conclusions, i believe the presence of homosexuality would be greatly decreased if young children(before adolescence) were not exposed to sex at such a high rate.

As far as the issue of gay marraige, a moral argument is an irrational one.
while the first amendmant alows freedom to practice any religion, it also prohibits passing federal laws “respecting an establishment of religion”.
since Christianity is obviously an establishement of religion, the principals behind it cannot be passed as federal laws without contradicting the first amendment.
at that point there would be no end to the ratification of religiously based law.
also, the constitution nowhere mentions marriage, so states can pass laws governing it freely.
That’s all i’ve got to say.

112

[quote]JTS wrote:
…

You have a BS in Chemical Engineering? That’s impressive, i’m pursuing my BS in Chemical and Biological Engineering right now, and it’s very hard. Good job.
…
[/quote]

Kick ass. The Bio aspect should be a big help. Chem E jobs suck now with all the new plants being built overseas.

I have been doing more environmental work for the last few years.

Good luck and don’t take my job when you graduate.

113

[quote]JTS wrote:
chinadoll wrote:
I have two aunties who have been together since before I was born. They should be able to be married. Their union has outlasted mostly everybody’s marriages, even longer than many people my age who are on their second, third marriages! Just because a couple is heterosexual doesn’t mean their relationship is more healthy than a gay couple’s.

So are you saying that just because homosexual marriages tend to last longer, that it is ok for them to be married?[/quote]

Chinadoll in no way made any protestation as to whether or not gay marriages/unions/relationships have a higher propensity towards long-term resolution. She merely stated an example from her own cache of experience.

I have a degree both in religion as well as biology and I am gay. I do not have the need to wave flags or be proud as I feel that in doing so I would be treating myself as unique or different. This in itself would be enough of an assertion that I am not capable of living a life that would generally coincide with the typical norm. I choose not to live any differently because I do not see myself as being any different. I believe that I strive to live a life with the highest degree of integrity; the cahracterstic that I believe is intrinsic in all of us.

A few ideas to keep in mind when approaching (or reproaching) a topic of great debate:

  1. Ethical and moral relativism. Learn about it.

  2. Faith cannot be arugued. Hence its inherant power and meaning.

  3. Nature is constantly in a state of flux; so is man and his interpretation of the world around him. Stasis is a figment of the imagination, or is for those too weak or incapable of change.

  4. Scholarly and faith reading vary greatly in their interpretation (as well as their interpolation) of religious texts.

  5. Although definitions are useful
    they have two very distinct functions. Firstly, they define what is. Secondly, they define what isnt. Life has no such natural dichotomies; the palette of color in which we see the world is varied and rich.

I dont wish to argue. Instead, I will live life as a member of a progressive humanity and hope that I am not alone.

Regards,
e

114

Why are people arguing in favor of gay marriage against the original post, line for line?

Does everyone see the sarcasm in it and realise that it’s realy a pro-gay marriage post?

115

[quote]djbige05 wrote:

We all live in sin…but a sin is a sin. In Gods eyes if you lie is just as bad if you killed someone. Now our man made laws put these at a certain level. Now if you believe Christ died for your sins and rose up again, then your ticket is already punched but if not then you will go to hell as simple as that. Hell is eternal seperation from god. So, the way you chose to live is up to you and only you, but think about this, what if you are wrong? My dad always told me that you need to make the bed you want to lie in.

[/quote]
If God thinks that lying is just as bad as killing someone, than God is an idiot. Since a sin is a sin, I suppose torturing small children is no worse than taking the lords name in vain? Apprently God is retarded.

116

I am Anti-Marriage…and proper spelling.

117

I have suddenly developed an irrational fear of the lapels on my tuxedo.

118

[quote]Christomopher wrote:
If God thinks that lying is just as bad as killing someone, than God is an idiot. Since a sin is a sin, I suppose torturing small children is no worse than taking the lords name in vain? Apprently God is retarded.[/quote]

NO NO NO God is not retarded, it’s the people who pretend to speak for him that are.

I have just declared myself Jesus.

Gay marriage is a thing of love, and therefore a thing of my father… because we all know that “God is love”. Y’all read my book, right? I know there’s a couple of different printings and whatnot, but that part was pretty clear. God is LOVE.

Gotta go now, got some herpes to cure… hardly any lepers around here…

XOXO Jesus

PS Stop arguing and get along with each other. Hatred (any kind) is like shouting in my ears. It’s loud and annoying… knock it off. Thanks in advance.

119

Wow I realized yet again why I dont read posts like this.

This never came close to being a discussion, rather a big agruement. Everybody had to show everyone they had the biggest megaphone or if they shouted loud enough, had authority. I’ve seen enough flashing of so called wisdom and educational degrees to make me puke. In the end of things, no man has authority over another. Your opinion is just that, and can be desputed because of the equality of mankind. My opinion is just as valid as anyone else’s, and education, intelligence, etcs dont put people on higher planes. People may know more than others, but their value is not higher.

Quite frankly it comes down to yet another God debate. Arguement really, and when that comes, I leave. I doubt anyone will miss my comments, but its like a bunch of 3rd graders arguing over pizza toppings, in mentality. Does anyone actually listen to anyone else?
-T

120

[quote]Lorisco wrote:

  1. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

No, just unnatural or contrary to all major religions in the world and contrary to Darwin’s survival of the fittest theory.

[/quote]

If being gay were truly contrary to ‘survival of the fittest’ then there would be no gay people. So evidently they are ‘fittest’ for survival :slight_smile: