[quote]orion wrote:
Babies, no less.
There is my objection to gay marriage right there.
[/quote]
They steal babies so they can turn 'em gay!
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Dustin wrote:
GrandpaButch copied and pasted a bunch of crap from the Book of Jewish Fairy Tales.
Great job using the Bible as scientific evidence! 
I’d rather use the Bible as scientific evidence, then a modern fad.[/quote]
I hope you are joking, but by the looks of the sunglasses you are wearing I would say you are serious.
[quote]Christine wrote:
orion wrote:
Babies, no less.
There is my objection to gay marriage right there.
They steal babies so they can turn 'em gay![/quote]
This is so obviously true it need not have been said. But I’ll say it again, this is a FACT!
[quote]phaethon wrote:
eigieinhamr wrote:
Wearing a cross is an action. Can I ban you from marriage if I point out the horrible things christianity has caused?
Well I am of the opinion that marriage should have nothing to do with the law.
So it is up to the churches.
If any legitimate religious organisation that has historically performed marriages wants to marry you then yes they can.[/quote]
If it’s not got anything to do with the law then what difference does it make if the organisation is legitimate and has a history of marriages?
[quote]eigieinhamr wrote:
If it’s not got anything to do with the law then what difference does it make if the organisation is legitimate and has a history of marriages?[/quote]
Because I won’t consider it a real marriage otherwise. And nor will most people.
On the other hand if the pope goes and marries two blokes tomorrow most people, even those that oppose gay marriage, will consider it a real marriage. (not that the pope performs marriages etc but you get the point)
[quote]phaethon wrote:
eigieinhamr wrote:
If it’s not got anything to do with the law then what difference does it make if the organisation is legitimate and has a history of marriages?
Because I won’t consider it a real marriage otherwise. And nor will most people.
On the other hand if the pope goes and marries two blokes tomorrow most people, even those that oppose gay marriage, will consider it a real marriage. (not that the pope performs marriages etc but you get the point)[/quote]
Does it really make any difference if people don’t see it as a real marriage?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Dustin wrote:
GrandpaButch copied and pasted a bunch of crap from the Book of Jewish Fairy Tales.
Great job using the Bible as scientific evidence!
I’d rather use the Bible as scientific evidence, then a modern fad.[/quote]
No No No NO! 1000 times NO!!
By far the greatest scientific achievement of the last 500 years was the rejection of the influence of the supernatural from the physical sciences.
There is nothing in the Bible that could even remotely be called science, and the original authors of the Bible had no concept of the scientific method. Belief without observable, reproducible evidence is not science, it is faith, and while I have nothing against faith, it should never be confused with science.
Of course, since you’re from Kansas, your post really doesn’t surprise me.
[quote]tom8658 wrote:
Of course, since you’re from Kansas, your post really doesn’t surprise me.[/quote]
Oklahoma is just as bad. I live in the epicenter of Christian Fundamentalism.
[quote]tom8658 wrote:
Of course, since you’re from Kansas, your post really doesn’t surprise me.[/quote]
And where are you from? I mean, I’m just sayin’…
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
tom8658 wrote:
Of course, since you’re from Kansas, your post really doesn’t surprise me.
And where are you from? I mean, I’m just sayin’…[/quote]
Fo realz, I thought about that as soon as I posted… The Kansas bit was sort of a joke anyway.
I actually want to see the creation museum, but I just cannot, in good conscience, give them my money when it will be used to subvert the teaching of science in the classroom.
[quote]quidnunc wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
forlife wrote:
GrandpaButch wrote:
However, as one Christian expert has said:
“Gender, race and impairment all relate to what a person is, whereas homosexuality relates to what a person does.”
Grandpa, the copy-and-paste warrior!
What I find funny about this “Christian expert” is that discrimination against gender and race is condemned, while discrimination against homosexuality is condoned.
HOWEVER
If this “Christian expert” bothered to read his holy book, he would find that the bible blatantly advocates slavery and misogeny. Oops.
So much for it being wrong to discriminate based on “what a person is”.
Until 1975, homosexuality was defined by the APA as a mental illness. Then $$$$$ came in and changed the tune.
If this was the 1950’s, you’d probably not be gay. Only when perversion got mainstreamed did people with a slight case of the mental illness feel free to get into these things.
Give me an explanation of why you hate homosexuality that doesn’t quote the Bible or commit the naturalistic fallacy.
Prove homosexuality is normal without quoting modernistic science, or commit non-tradition folly. Go away '09
What do you even mean? Obviously, the great majority of people aren’t gay, but then, the great majority of people aren’t stamp collectors or hockey fans or weightlifters, yet there’s nothing wrong with being any of these things.
Perhaps you meant “prove that it’s not bad?” It’s an immutable trait that has no effect on third parties, like race or blood type or height. In every moral system I’m aware of, traits like these are accepted.
I said normal, not common. And god does not hate gay’s, he hates sin. And men laying with men as they would lay with women, is a sin.
Again, explain why you hate gays (or the defining characteristic of gays) without resorting to religious babble. You haven’t yet.
Hmm, yet you have not followed what I have said, you must be short because it was definitely not meant to go over your head.
Well, I’m not a sociologist, but sociology explains that the corner stone of the survival of a country is the institute of marriage. Committing acts of adultery, and sexual acts outside wedlock deteriorate that institute.
Did you read what I wrote? You challenged me to explain why gays are “normal”, without defining the word. I explained that by one definition, gays are of course not “normal” but the same is true of any minority group whatsoever, and that by the other definition, gays are indeed normal.
If marriage is really the foundation of our society, then certainly you’ll support efforts to draw as many people as we can into this institution. Oh wait.
But of course you’ve completely misunderstood the sociologists. The FAMILY, not marriage, is the basic social unit. But that is a broad term, and what you have in mind when you hear that word - a married man and woman and their minor children - is not the norm in most of the world. The most common sort of family for most human societies over history has been a man, his several wives, their children potentially up to middle age, and any of a number of grandparents or siblings or whatever. Given the tremendous diversity of the family, the standard American gay couple - two men or women and their minor children - is actually far closer to your conception of the family than the sociological norm.
[/quote]
And you presume to know what I consider social norm. When I say marriage, I am talking about the bond between two people bringing together two families. One that can also produce off spring, gay people can not produce off spring together no matter how much you try.
My dad does not just have one wife, and I am not sure how many girlfriend’s he has had. Plus many children, and we live in close proximity to our ancestors. So, get off my nuts before you know. I know this shit man.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
orion wrote:
forlife wrote:
GrandpaButch wrote:
However, as one Christian expert has said:
“Gender, race and impairment all relate to what a person is, whereas homosexuality relates to what a person does.”
Grandpa, the copy-and-paste warrior!
What I find funny about this “Christian expert” is that discrimination against gender and race is condemned, while discrimination against homosexuality is condoned.
HOWEVER
If this “Christian expert” bothered to read his holy book, he would find that the bible blatantly advocates slavery and misogeny. Oops.
So much for it being wrong to discriminate based on “what a person is”.
Plus, people are not born Christian, they are made that way.
They could choose to not be Christian but they live it anyway and make um, special, posts on the interwebz.
I think Christianity is unnatural and I want it to stop.
Well, sense the Invisible One created this world, and sent his only begotten son, I’m pretty sure you just committed heresy.[/quote]
Sense [Sic] you are quite stupid we need to type easier to understand words for you.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
forlife wrote:
GrandpaButch wrote:
However, as one Christian expert has said:
“Gender, race and impairment all relate to what a person is, whereas homosexuality relates to what a person does.”
Grandpa, the copy-and-paste warrior!
What I find funny about this “Christian expert” is that discrimination against gender and race is condemned, while discrimination against homosexuality is condoned.
HOWEVER
If this “Christian expert” bothered to read his holy book, he would find that the bible blatantly advocates slavery and misogeny. Oops.
So much for it being wrong to discriminate based on “what a person is”.
Until 1975, homosexuality was defined by the APA as a mental illness. Then $$$$$ came in and changed the tune.
If this was the 1950’s, you’d probably not be gay. Only when perversion got mainstreamed did people with a slight case of the mental illness feel free to get into these things.
Give me an explanation of why you hate homosexuality that doesn’t quote the Bible or commit the naturalistic fallacy.
Prove homosexuality is normal without quoting modernistic science, or commit non-tradition folly. Go away '09
What do you even mean? Obviously, the great majority of people aren’t gay, but then, the great majority of people aren’t stamp collectors or hockey fans or weightlifters, yet there’s nothing wrong with being any of these things.
Perhaps you meant “prove that it’s not bad?” It’s an immutable trait that has no effect on third parties, like race or blood type or height. In every moral system I’m aware of, traits like these are accepted.
I said normal, not common. And god does not hate gay’s, he hates sin. And men laying with men as they would lay with women, is a sin.[/quote]
He doesn’t hate gay’s what?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
orion wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
orion wrote:
forlife wrote:
GrandpaButch wrote:
However, as one Christian expert has said:
“Gender, race and impairment all relate to what a person is, whereas homosexuality relates to what a person does.”
Grandpa, the copy-and-paste warrior!
What I find funny about this “Christian expert” is that discrimination against gender and race is condemned, while discrimination against homosexuality is condoned.
HOWEVER
If this “Christian expert” bothered to read his holy book, he would find that the bible blatantly advocates slavery and misogeny. Oops.
So much for it being wrong to discriminate based on “what a person is”.
Plus, people are not born Christian, they are made that way.
They could choose to not be Christian but they live it anyway and make um, special, posts on the interwebz.
I think Christianity is unnatural and I want it to stop.
Well, sense the Invisible One created this world, and sent his only begotten son, I’m pretty sure you just committed heresy.
How so?
I never questioned that Herakles is indeed the son of Zeus?
hah win.
So says the guys that do not know that The Invisible one is one in the same as the name God, since before Moses, God had no name so was sometimes called The Invisible One, YWHW, I Am, etc.[/quote]
That should be so say the guys or so says the guy. Also the phrase is one and the same not in the same. And the God of the Isralites did have a name, he was developed from the war god in a local polytheistic religion.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
forlife wrote:
GrandpaButch wrote:
However, as one Christian expert has said:
“Gender, race and impairment all relate to what a person is, whereas homosexuality relates to what a person does.”
Grandpa, the copy-and-paste warrior!
What I find funny about this “Christian expert” is that discrimination against gender and race is condemned, while discrimination against homosexuality is condoned.
HOWEVER
If this “Christian expert” bothered to read his holy book, he would find that the bible blatantly advocates slavery and misogeny. Oops.
So much for it being wrong to discriminate based on “what a person is”.
Until 1975, homosexuality was defined by the APA as a mental illness. Then $$$$$ came in and changed the tune.
If this was the 1950’s, you’d probably not be gay. Only when perversion got mainstreamed did people with a slight case of the mental illness feel free to get into these things.
Give me an explanation of why you hate homosexuality that doesn’t quote the Bible or commit the naturalistic fallacy.
Prove homosexuality is normal without quoting modernistic science, or commit non-tradition folly. Go away '09
What do you even mean? Obviously, the great majority of people aren’t gay, but then, the great majority of people aren’t stamp collectors or hockey fans or weightlifters, yet there’s nothing wrong with being any of these things.
Perhaps you meant “prove that it’s not bad?” It’s an immutable trait that has no effect on third parties, like race or blood type or height. In every moral system I’m aware of, traits like these are accepted.
I said normal, not common. And god does not hate gay’s, he hates sin. And men laying with men as they would lay with women, is a sin.
Again, explain why you hate gays (or the defining characteristic of gays) without resorting to religious babble. You haven’t yet.
Hmm, yet you have not followed what I have said, you must be short because it was definitely not meant to go over your head.
Well, I’m not a sociologist, but sociology explains that the corner stone of the survival of a country is the institute of marriage. Committing acts of adultery, and sexual acts outside wedlock deteriorate that institute. [/quote]
Is this the institute to which you refer? http://www.nationalmarriage.com/
Talking of institutes I get the growing feeling from your posts that you should be institutionalised.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
orion wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
orion wrote:
Babies, no less.
There is my objection to gay marriage right there.
I don’t think all that many babies get gay marriages, so I’m not quite sure what you’re talking about.
That is because you do not pay attention.
Obviously gay birds steal other birds eggs and breed them.
So, and this is, like dhuh!, completely inevitably, married gay guys would steal babies to play family.
Dude, it is like, so obvious,
I cannot support baby stealing.
Pretty sure you’re not serious, but if you are, you are aware that there are lots of unwanted babies in the world and that gay couples who adopt (which isn’t their only option, lesbians can get a sperm donor and gay men can get a surrogate mother) will take care of one of these, yes?
I know you’re gay, obvious from your avatar, but with one of your modernistic fad’s it is said that homosexuals raising a child have produced a harder life for that child. This is of course caused by the child’s of the up bringing and views of the child after being raised by homosexuals as well as the child usually being anti-social.[/quote]
OK quick lesson for you.
's implies possesion it is not used to pluralise a noun. Bonus info, the plural of child is children.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
forlife wrote:
GrandpaButch wrote:
However, as one Christian expert has said:
“Gender, race and impairment all relate to what a person is, whereas homosexuality relates to what a person does.”
Grandpa, the copy-and-paste warrior!
What I find funny about this “Christian expert” is that discrimination against gender and race is condemned, while discrimination against homosexuality is condoned.
HOWEVER
If this “Christian expert” bothered to read his holy book, he would find that the bible blatantly advocates slavery and misogeny. Oops.
So much for it being wrong to discriminate based on “what a person is”.
Until 1975, homosexuality was defined by the APA as a mental illness. Then $$$$$ came in and changed the tune.
If this was the 1950’s, you’d probably not be gay. Only when perversion got mainstreamed did people with a slight case of the mental illness feel free to get into these things.
Give me an explanation of why you hate homosexuality that doesn’t quote the Bible or commit the naturalistic fallacy.
Prove homosexuality is normal without quoting modernistic science, or commit non-tradition folly. Go away '09
What do you even mean? Obviously, the great majority of people aren’t gay, but then, the great majority of people aren’t stamp collectors or hockey fans or weightlifters, yet there’s nothing wrong with being any of these things.
Perhaps you meant “prove that it’s not bad?” It’s an immutable trait that has no effect on third parties, like race or blood type or height. In every moral system I’m aware of, traits like these are accepted.
I said normal, not common. And god does not hate gay’s, he hates sin. And men laying with men as they would lay with women, is a sin.
Again, explain why you hate gays (or the defining characteristic of gays) without resorting to religious babble. You haven’t yet.
Hmm, yet you have not followed what I have said, you must be short because it was definitely not meant to go over your head.
Well, I’m not a sociologist, but sociology explains that the corner stone of the survival of a country is the institute of marriage. Committing acts of adultery, and sexual acts outside wedlock deteriorate that institute.
Did you read what I wrote? You challenged me to explain why gays are “normal”, without defining the word. I explained that by one definition, gays are of course not “normal” but the same is true of any minority group whatsoever, and that by the other definition, gays are indeed normal.
If marriage is really the foundation of our society, then certainly you’ll support efforts to draw as many people as we can into this institution. Oh wait.
But of course you’ve completely misunderstood the sociologists. The FAMILY, not marriage, is the basic social unit. But that is a broad term, and what you have in mind when you hear that word - a married man and woman and their minor children - is not the norm in most of the world. The most common sort of family for most human societies over history has been a man, his several wives, their children potentially up to middle age, and any of a number of grandparents or siblings or whatever. Given the tremendous diversity of the family, the standard American gay couple - two men or women and their minor children - is actually far closer to your conception of the family than the sociological norm.
And you presume to know what I consider social norm. When I say marriage, I am talking about the bond between two people bringing together two families. One that can also produce off spring, gay people can not produce off spring together no matter how much you try.
My dad does not just have one wife, and I am not sure how many girlfriend’s he has had. Plus many children, and we live in close proximity to our ancestors. So, get off my nuts before you know. I know this shit man. [/quote]
Chris, are your posts written by an infinite number of monkeys chained to keyboards? How long has the experiment been running and are we close to getting the complete works of Shakespeare?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I know you’re gay, obvious from your avatar, but with one of your modernistic fad’s it is said that homosexuals raising a child have produced a harder life for that child. This is of course caused by the child’s of the up bringing and views of the child after being raised by homosexuals as well as the child usually being anti-social.[/quote]
Go read up. Every major medical and mental health organization has actually done the research, and concluded that children raised by gay parents are on equal footing with children raised by straight parents, on all measures of psychological health. You couldn’t be more wrong.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
I know you’re gay, obvious from your avatar, but with one of your modernistic fad’s it is said that homosexuals raising a child have produced a harder life for that child. This is of course caused by the child’s of the up bringing and views of the child after being raised by homosexuals as well as the child usually being anti-social.
Go read up. Every major medical and mental health organization has actually done the research, and concluded that children raised by gay parents are on equal footing with children raised by straight parents, on all measures of psychological health. You couldn’t be more wrong.[/quote]
But they’re all controlled by a sinister conspiracy of limp-wristed effeminates, you see (NOT HOMOPHOBIC)
[quote]eigieinhamr wrote:
Does it really make any difference if people don’t see it as a real marriage?[/quote]
YES. That is the whole damn point. Otherwise gay people would be happy with civil unions that gave the same rights as marriage.