The CappedAndPlanIt answer-to-Sloth’s-polygamy-question watch continues.
Is it an act of BIGOTRY to deny people the right to engage in polygamous marriage relationships? Or any consenting adult relationship?
Should there be any boundaries to how marriage be recognized - and based on your definition, how could any boundaries be set that weren’t based in BIGOTRY?
[quote]orion wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
orion wrote:
Reiterating your definitions albeit implicitly do not make them
any more binding for the rest of us.
There is lots of risky behaviors you have no problems with.
Or are you for seat belt and helmet laws?
People who choose to not where seat belts or helmets endanger themselves. How does that conflict with what I’ve said?
Because everyone who has sex in this day and age without protection chooses to endanger him/herself.
To act as if only the homosexual partner is to blame for the spread of disease is preposterous.
Whether you mount a bike or a gay dude, it is your responsibility to protect yourself. [/quote]
I hope you’re not asserting an equal HIV risk for heterosexuals. The WHO finally admitted that it’s, in fact, a homosexual disease.
Of course it is. We can’t discriminate against gays and we can’t discriminate against polygamous Muslims. Once the next amnesty passes, we’ll have a lot more of the latter living here wanting their way.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
orion wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
orion wrote:
Reiterating your definitions albeit implicitly do not make them
any more binding for the rest of us.
There is lots of risky behaviors you have no problems with.
Or are you for seat belt and helmet laws?
People who choose to not where seat belts or helmets endanger themselves. How does that conflict with what I’ve said?
Because everyone who has sex in this day and age without protection chooses to endanger him/herself.
To act as if only the homosexual partner is to blame for the spread of disease is preposterous.
Whether you mount a bike or a gay dude, it is your responsibility to protect yourself.
I hope you’re not asserting an equal HIV risk for heterosexuals. The WHO finally admitted that it’s, in fact, a homosexual disease. [/quote]
Not it is not, because the virus does not care.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
No, because that has to do with the country; government, not religion. The government should not be endorsing any marriage (gay or otherwise) period.
Marriage is a religious institution and should stay that way. Then if gays can find a religion that wants to support their marriage, fine, no problem. But it should not be supported by the government.
I’m confused now, maybe I read your previous arguments wrong. You don’t mind gay marriage then?
I’ve already stated that the government has no business in the PRIVATE lives of it’s citizens unless the citizen is likely to harm another.[/quote]
I don’t mind gay domestic partners or anything else they want to call it. I DO mind gay marriage. But I also do not think that marriage should be a government or legal agreement. It should be religious only.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I dont think thats a bad thing. Its not as though the concept hasn’t changed throughout history (women are no longer property, marriages are no longer arranged by others, divorce is now legal).
I think, honestly, the underlying issue is that christians want reaffirmation that they are right, and having legal marriage reflect their religions tradition of marriage gives them reason to feel justified.
[/quote]
You seem to be making this a Christian thing and it’s not. Nearly all organized religions are against homosexuality and gay marriage; Muslims, Jews, Hindu, etc. All against homosexuality. So it’s not a Christian thing, it’s a religious thing.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The CappedAndPlanIt answer-to-Sloth’s-polygamy-question watch continues.
Is it an act of BIGOTRY to deny people the right to engage in polygamous marriage relationships? Or any consenting adult relationship?
Should there be any boundaries to how marriage be recognized - and based on your definition, how could any boundaries be set that weren’t based in BIGOTRY?[/quote]
Very good point.
[quote]orion wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
orion wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
orion wrote:
Reiterating your definitions albeit implicitly do not make them
any more binding for the rest of us.
There is lots of risky behaviors you have no problems with.
Or are you for seat belt and helmet laws?
People who choose to not where seat belts or helmets endanger themselves. How does that conflict with what I’ve said?
Because everyone who has sex in this day and age without protection chooses to endanger him/herself.
To act as if only the homosexual partner is to blame for the spread of disease is preposterous.
Whether you mount a bike or a gay dude, it is your responsibility to protect yourself.
I hope you’re not asserting an equal HIV risk for heterosexuals. The WHO finally admitted that it’s, in fact, a homosexual disease.
Not it is not, because the virus does not care.
[/quote]
It’s not a matter of whether the virus cares or not. It’s a matter of functional anatomy. Actually, that’s not quite true. The HIV virus doesn’t have an affinity for vaginal cells, except for subtype C, which has a slightly higher affinity.
The reason homosexual men get it is that the cells of the anus are square-like and break off easily. The tissue is also very thin in the anus, as opposed to the vagina where it is thick and the cells are round and much harder to break off, so it is much easier to draw blood with homosexual sex and exchange it with your partner.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Sloth wrote:
P.S. I mean at that point, you might as well let heterosexual roommates marry, if they thought they could recieve some benefit.
You think this doesn’t happen? My uncle is married to his friend purely for the tax and insurance benefits. They are in no way having relations of any kind. [/quote]
Sorry, I was thinking more along the lines of two same-sex heterosexual roommates. If the government shouldn’t define marriage by what happens in the bedroom, then it can’t worry about what ISN’T going on in the bedroom either.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
I don’t mind gay domestic partners or anything else they want to call it. I DO mind gay marriage. But I also do not think that marriage should be a government or legal agreement. It should be religious only.[/quote]
But I’m saying they should be allowed to call it marriage if they want. By removing the government, it’s a matter of personal definition. Maybe that will destroy marriage in the “modern” sense, but the “traditional” family unit is hardly going to suffer.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
You seem to be making this a Christian thing and it’s not. Nearly all organized religions are against homosexuality and gay marriage; Muslims, Jews, Hindu, etc. All against homosexuality. So it’s not a Christian thing, it’s a religious thing.[/quote]
Hindu’s aren’t (supposed to be) against homosexuality.
Look, here’s my view of marriage:
Either;
A) Allow it all. Anything between two or more consenting adults is ok. Bed room manner is irrelevant.
OR
B) Get government the fuck out of marriage. Give benefits to people who raise children, therefore, encouraging the family unit. Let insurance companies deal with their end on a case by case basis, and make new inheritance laws to clean up the cases in which people die too young to have considered a will.
I’m curious, Lorisco, are there any other anti-gay areas of the Bible other than Leviticus? For reference, I mean, are there any places in the New Testament that are blatantly against Gay Marriage and/or homosexuality in general?
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
I’m curious, Lorisco, are there any other anti-gay areas of the Bible other than Leviticus? For reference, I mean, are there any places in the New Testament that are blatantly against Gay Marriage and/or homosexuality in general?[/quote]
Romans 1 - 2.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
I’m curious, Lorisco, are there any other anti-gay areas of the Bible other than Leviticus? For reference, I mean, are there any places in the New Testament that are blatantly against Gay Marriage and/or homosexuality in general?
Romans 1 - 2. [/quote]
Care to quote supporting text? I’m too lazy to look it up.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
I’m curious, Lorisco, are there any other anti-gay areas of the Bible other than Leviticus? For reference, I mean, are there any places in the New Testament that are blatantly against Gay Marriage and/or homosexuality in general?
Romans 1 - 2.
Care to quote supporting text? I’m too lazy to look it up.[/quote]
27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
I’m curious, Lorisco, are there any other anti-gay areas of the Bible other than Leviticus? For reference, I mean, are there any places in the New Testament that are blatantly against Gay Marriage and/or homosexuality in general?
Romans 1 - 2.
Care to quote supporting text? I’m too lazy to look it up.
27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
[/quote]
Here is a more readable version:
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
I’m curious, Lorisco, are there any other anti-gay areas of the Bible other than Leviticus? For reference, I mean, are there any places in the New Testament that are blatantly against Gay Marriage and/or homosexuality in general?
Romans 1 - 2.
Care to quote supporting text? I’m too lazy to look it up.
27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Here is a more readable version:
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
[/quote]
Ah. Thank you. Very helpful.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
I’m curious, Lorisco, are there any other anti-gay areas of the Bible other than Leviticus? For reference, I mean, are there any places in the New Testament that are blatantly against Gay Marriage and/or homosexuality in general?
Romans 1 - 2.
Care to quote supporting text? I’m too lazy to look it up.
27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Here is a more readable version:
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.[/quote]
Thank you both.
Despite the bible quotes, is there an actual reason for banning gay marriage? All I’ve seen is intolerance and fear of being “overrun” by the homos.