How could any American be against gays getting married if they are of the age of consent? Because (IMO) 1: Homosexual acts are disgusting to most heterosexuals (C'mon be honest here all you liberals) if we think about what they are actually doing and 2) Homosexual marriage is a totally alien concept not known thoughout all of Western civilization. Heck, we don't don't even have the vocabulary as to what you call them.. husband? wife? Best we can come up with is "partner" which is confusing to anyone in a professional practice.
Then come the religious reasons (Hezekiah 2:16 notwithstanding) which should be ignored in a pluralistic society, I think because we're talking civil not religious laws here.
I don't really like it but if gays want to get "married" them let them, I say, and woe unto them for it .
There is little history to go on to show if children raised in homosexual families will do well. Since they will never be the actual parents, will there still be mother /father roles?
I have no inclination to join this debate, but I think this statement is an important reality that often gets lost in the argument..I think, at best, a gay marriage with full adoption rights and so forth is an experiment...It's one thing to look at young'ns that are well nourished, and doing well in school, etc. but these young'ns become adolescents, teenagers and adults...What will be the impact on a person who realizes his biological father is a donor in some sperm bank, or their mother was a paid surrogate?...Amost every young person I know who grew up without one of their biological parents, upon reaching adulthood wanted to connect with the missing parent--even if only to provide closure...
Speaking of Straw Man arguments the whole black analogy is ridicules. Blacks wanted the use of same thing that others had use of period, to vote, to use drinking fountains, to ride in the same seats on the bus. They wanted to use things as they were by definition, they never asked to change the meaning of anything, they did not want us to call a bus a dump truck now. I have no problem with equal rights and benefits for everyone, in cases where that is not the case it can be changed by amending laws to accept a civil union or another choice of words. But that's not good enough for some they want to change the historic meaning of a word. Why? They have the same right to marry a man or a woman of the opposite sex as everyone else, they don't want to, their choice. That's not unequal rights it is refused rights, their choice. If Gays want a union of some sort for legal purposes , make a new word for it call it civil union or whatever other word they want, fine with me, Marriage is traditionally man and wife, it has not been until the last years that the definition has been corrupted by sympathetic liberals. as Kimberly pointed out it is the way nature works, even in cards a marriage is a king and queen. It's not about equal rights it's about making everyone else change existing language to their point of view, it's a turf war we made you change your meaning of marriage. The legal system could easily be amended to accept the marriage and or civil union equally to honor benefits. Even the ”Chief Justice George conceded that “as an historical matter in this state marriage has always been restricted to a union between a man and a woman.”
In nature, it is certainly not instinctive for the actual parent to care more about their kids.
There are far more species than just rats that have a regular practice of infanticide , following are just a few examples (this is not by any means an exhaustive list):
Abigal's argument is not stupid at all. To find one or two species who supposedly mate for life and extrapolate that out to include the human species is, to me, either gross oversimplification or based on some romanticized notion of nature.
Who said anything about mating for life? ... In nature, animals overwhelmingly protect, feed and care for their young. The term "nesting" is used of humans. Humans naturally care for their young, especially mothers. Fathers as well I believe, but if that is a weaker link, all the more reason to encourage a strong father role by cultural practice.
I'm on a farm, and every wild and domestic species I can think of here is very protective of their young. Where did you come up with your list of bad animal parents?
How could any American be against gays getting married if they are of the age of consent? Because (IMO) 1: Homosexual acts are disgusting to most heterosexuals (C'mon be honest here all you liberals) if we think about what they are actually doing...
sudo
So, are you saying that the thought of two women having sex with each other is disgusting to heterosexual men?
The porn industry would vigorously disagree and they have the bundles of money to prove that it is absolutely not disgusting,
but rather is sought out by huge numbers of hetero males.
So, it's really just the man sex that's a problem (since we're being honest).
Re:"So, it's really just the man sex that's a problem (since we're being honest)."
Oh, OK you're right... I admit.. its the man on man thing that really makes MY skin crawl. But I still say that they should be able to have the rights to benefits and inheritance as non-pervert married couples.... even if I would prefer not to have them for neighbors exactly.
I have no inclination to join this debate, but I think this statement is an important reality that often gets lost in the argument..I think, at best, a gay marriage with full adoption rights and so forth is an experiment...It's one thing to look at young'ns that are well nourished, and doing well in school, etc. but these young'ns become adolescents, teenagers and adults...What will be the impact on a person who realizes his biological father is a donor in some sperm bank, or their mother was a paid surrogate?...Amost every young person I know who grew up without one of their biological parents, upon reaching adulthood wanted to connect with the missing parent--even if only to provide closure...
I agree that many people, upon reaching adulthood, want to connect with their biological parent (s).
But, may I remind you, that heterosexuals also avail themselves of sperm banks and paid surrogates in ever increasing numbers.
And now, due to this practice by heterosexuals, we have an ethical and moral dilemma with regards to frozen embryos.
However, no one seems to question the right of heterosexuals to engage in these practices,
so why should it be any different for homosexuals.
If it's a bad practice, then let's focus on the practice itself and not the sexual orientation of the participants.
Re:"So, it's really just the man sex that's a problem (since we're being honest)."
Oh, OK you're right... I admit.. its the man on man thing that really makes MY skin crawl. But I still say that they should be able to have the rights to benefits and inheritance as non-pervert married couples.... even if I would prefer not to have them for neighbors exactly.
sudo
An honest reply, I can respect that!
But (ya know, there's always a but) I know of some pretty perverted married couples, that I would prefer not to have as neighbors.
Why doesn't everybody just finally wise up and act exactly like me?
Jeezus, you guys just don't get it. Any actions contrary to the way I act or would approve are obviously debauched and repellent and should be prohibited at all costs.
And - by extension - this applies to any condemned activities enumerated by my god of choice, be it Holy Thunderer, Flying Spaghetti Monster, or whatever Diety Du Jour I'm currently enamored with...
Ayep...I was kinda wondering when we would end up with the het perv discussion...it's just how this place seems to go at times...extending (no pun intended) one topic into something vaguely related...extended again to something else until the original thread is lost in the noise. Shall we just legislate that only sex in the female missionary position is legal and then only acceptable on Saturday mornings after being given the blessing of the "Holy Thunderer?"
I gotta be honest...the idea of man on man is a distinct turn off to me...but exactly what affect does legalizing gay marriage have on me? As near as I can tell pretty much zero...now you might say that if a gay couple moved into my little redneck neighborhood (theoretically) my proper value might go down - well guess what - whether their "union" is legal or not is immaterial - their still going to live together. Will it change my tax base? Not likely. Will it change my employment opportunities - flat no - it's already a federal mandate you can't discriminate on that issue - whether gay or het. Oh dear! What if my children see a gay couple?!?!?! I got news for ya - if you live in San Diego and have teens - they've already seen them. Somehow didn't make my kids turn gay.....or turn to the "evil god of gay lust and hedonism." So if there is no affect on me (and family) what's the big deal? You'd make more social progress with a thread that discusses female genital mutilation in a large number of countries. Now THAT I would agree is a crime against humanity and nature.
Why doesn't everybody just finally wise up and act exactly like me?
Jeezus, you guys just don't get it. Any actions contrary to the way I act or would approve are obviously debauched and repellent and should be prohibited at all costs.
And - by extension - this applies to any condemned activities enumerated by my god of choice, be it Holy Thunderer, Flying Spaghetti Monster, or whatever Diety Du Jour I'm currently enamored with...
I'm on a farm, and every wild and domestic species I can think of here is very protective of their young. Where did you come up with your list of bad animal parents?
It's called Animal Planet. Call your cable service provider.
If they don't have it, you apparently know how to use some of the internets. Google-loogle.
If that doesn't work... do you know the dewey decimal system? Be careful though.
If Gays want a union of some sort for legal purposes , make a new word for it call it civil union or whatever other word they want, fine with me, Marriage is traditionally man and wife, it has not been until the last years that the definition has been corrupted by sympathetic liberals.
So this is more about the rights to a definition? So they can go ahead and have a "union", and live together, and get all the benefits of what you call a marriage, etc etc, as long as they don't call it a "marriage"?
If there is one thing history can teach us about words is that they change and their definitions change. If not now, then the next generation. Of course by then we might all be saying, "we're goin' to the Chizzy to get mizzied."
Ayep...I was kinda wondering when we would end up with the het perv discussion
well... i'll try to bring it back on topic...
God is not gonna "bless" california because of this legal decision...
God has already given his opinion on homosexuality (as previously noted)...
I think the "demonization" of homosxuality is really nothing more than finding a scapegoat for what's supposedly *really* wrong in america
hey, little ham-ster... this is not a matter of "demonization" (although i do note that the use of this language term is powerful... as well as the term "scapegoat")
personally, i do not believe that homosexuals have cornered the market on what is "really wrong in america"...
My personal experiences with homosexuals is what has lead me to think that they realy are a sub culture to themselves
Most of the folks I have met have clearly had or have deep emotional troubles
i have also had the same experience...
The term parenting has it root in "parents".
Changing the meanings of words is fundamental to changing society itself. Most seem to think marriage has a more special place, that includes parenting. Same sex marriages that don't have children have failed in that aspect ... but I guess they have the potential to be parents.
they have the potential to be parents IF they use heterosexual people's children... (or perhaps if they use a "donor" or sperm bank... which in that case (as rhino has already pointed out) they have already created a "broken home" by definition...
we definitely are changing our society by redefining basic words like "marriage" and "parenting"...
In nature, it is certainly not instinctive for the actual parent to care more about their kids.
There are far more species than just rats that have a regular practice of infanticide
IF this really were the case, then all of those species listed would be extinct...
and clearly, there are no cases in the animal world where same sex animals mate and raise offspring...
that's because homosexuality is against nature...
I think, at best, a gay marriage with full adoption rights and so forth is an experiment...It's one thing to look at young'ns that are well nourished, and doing well in school, etc. but these young'ns become adolescents, teenagers and adults...
this is absolutely an experiment...
and in the cases i know of, an experiment gone bad...
i know of cases where homosexuals adopted children... and even at the young age of 7 and 8, those children are in counseling for a variety of issues...
Speaking of Straw Man arguments the whole black analogy is ridicules
Sure it's a strawman argument if you say so, just to shut up the other side. There are already cases filed in other states and courts to get plural marriages legalized. There are also movements to lower marriage age when consent of parents is given. But it is all strawmen because you say so. NAMBLA is waiting in the wings, I am sure they will also use the strawman argument of pedophiles are born not made. Just because you don't see an association doesn't mean there isn't one. But, I do have to agree the whole gay marriage thing is not that big of a deal, the moral decay of this country in the name of "what happens in the bedroom" is private just keeps getting drug into the light of day. Gay and lesbian are not protected status by federal law, neither is liberal or conservative. Depends on state and local law. If Ernie and Adam want to get married most places in this country have no laws to prevent firing them. There might be a few burgs and little spots with "chop shops" that say you can't do that; but there is nothing federal.
Your right Rhino, I added very little to this topic..My precepts are based on real life issues from my experience of 50 plus years..
the fabric of life has changed so much that it realy concerns me what will this life be like when my grandchildren grow up..when I get some that is..and that I can teach them to love, but to listen to thier gut feeling about these things. It has a strong hold on our young and the old..
It seems that we may be loosing the true strength of a man, and the delicate nature of a woman..
Holding up heterosexual marriage up like some sort of testament of all that's good and pure is no beacon of truth, the facts are that 50% of all marriages today end in divorce, what's so good about that?
I know plenty of good souls who happen to be gay, who have jobs, contribute to society and are over 40 years old and are as settled as any hetero couple. They do not operate on the frindge of society, are not pervs, some even have children.
I just can't fathom why so many christians have this loathing obsession whith gay people, some sects even believe they will have no part in heaven, that kind of hatred shows through, it is no witness for God. Society's easy targets these days are gays, fat people and mexicans, somehow some people feel justified to loathe them.
What California did doesn't rewrite the bible, in fact it has little to do with the bible, it has to do with a state recognized contract, and equality in terms of legal and human services afforded under that contract.
God is not gonna "bless" california because of this legal decision...
What does that mean - God isn't going to bless California?
What's he going to do to it? Rain fire and brimstone down upon it? Curse it with pestilence and plague?
Cause an earthquake of unimaginable magnitude and kill off hundreds of thousands of people?
So, your god is an out of control 3 year old that when he doesn't get his way, he throws a no holds barred temper tantrum?
That reminds of the TWI rap: if you leave TWI God's not going to bless you; you'll be a grease spot by midnight. Well that turned out to be a lie.
I really want know, I hear people say this kind of stuff all the time, but never give any specific consequences. So what, exactly does that mean? What's going to happen?
God has already given his opinion on homosexuality (as previously noted)...
Allegedly God gave his opinion on adultery too, in Leviticus 20:10, "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife-with the wife of his neighbor - both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."
Must be put to death - the same punishment as homosexuality. Apparently, this god puts adultery and homosexuality on the same level of sin - a sin requiring death.
In the U. S. more than 80% of spouses say they have committed adultery at least once. So, according to your standard, those people are not worthy to be parents, or even to be married. In fact, they are worthy of being stoned to death. Well, that should make for a lot of single parent families or no parent families.
Of course, it might be asking too much of heterosexuals to clean up their own back yard.
I know many non confessed, non christian taxpayers to have concerns about this uprising as well..so much for catorgorizing. I welcome thier intelect as well.
So this is more about the rights to a definition? So they can go ahead and have a "union", and live together, and get all the benefits of what you call a marriage, etc etc, as long as they don't call it a "marriage"?
If there is one thing history can teach us about words is that they change and their definitions change. If not now, then the next generation. Of course by then we might all be saying, "we're goin' to the Chizzy to get mizzied."
No it's about not perverting a language for your own selfless point, for a Na Na Na Na Na moment. If everyone changed words because they don't like how they feel we would be in trouble trying to communicate . There is no point to changing a word that communicates. Even today as we discover new things we also add new words to coincide with them we don't change other words as a rule for no point. When computers came along Gee we added a new word we did not call them TV's just because they had a screen. Why because we already had a word for what a TV is. The only point for changing the definition of marriage is so they can have an" in your face moment" against the culture. Getting benefits which I think they deserve as much as the next, and it appears that most here agree, can be accomplished without perverting the language. Marriage can represent man and woman, civil union can represent man and man or woman and woman. animal union can represent animal and human :blink: It explains what each is while passing no judgment on each.
By the way ,if you haven't noticed history has not changed the definition for many generations or for many other words for that matter.
Speaking of Straw Man arguments the whole black analogy is ridicules
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
22
22
52
16
Popular Days
May 18
57
May 17
34
May 25
29
May 21
27
Top Posters In This Topic
jen-o 22 posts
WhiteDove 22 posts
rhino 52 posts
bfh 16 posts
Popular Days
May 18 2008
57 posts
May 17 2008
34 posts
May 25 2008
29 posts
May 21 2008
27 posts
Posted Images
Sudo
How could any American be against gays getting married if they are of the age of consent? Because (IMO) 1: Homosexual acts are disgusting to most heterosexuals (C'mon be honest here all you liberals) if we think about what they are actually doing and 2) Homosexual marriage is a totally alien concept not known thoughout all of Western civilization. Heck, we don't don't even have the vocabulary as to what you call them.. husband? wife? Best we can come up with is "partner" which is confusing to anyone in a professional practice.
Then come the religious reasons (Hezekiah 2:16 notwithstanding) which should be ignored in a pluralistic society, I think because we're talking civil not religious laws here.
I don't really like it but if gays want to get "married" them let them, I say, and woe unto them for it
.
sudo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
simonzelotes
I have no inclination to join this debate, but I think this statement is an important reality that often gets lost in the argument..I think, at best, a gay marriage with full adoption rights and so forth is an experiment...It's one thing to look at young'ns that are well nourished, and doing well in school, etc. but these young'ns become adolescents, teenagers and adults...What will be the impact on a person who realizes his biological father is a donor in some sperm bank, or their mother was a paid surrogate?...Amost every young person I know who grew up without one of their biological parents, upon reaching adulthood wanted to connect with the missing parent--even if only to provide closure...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Speaking of Straw Man arguments the whole black analogy is ridicules. Blacks wanted the use of same thing that others had use of period, to vote, to use drinking fountains, to ride in the same seats on the bus. They wanted to use things as they were by definition, they never asked to change the meaning of anything, they did not want us to call a bus a dump truck now. I have no problem with equal rights and benefits for everyone, in cases where that is not the case it can be changed by amending laws to accept a civil union or another choice of words. But that's not good enough for some they want to change the historic meaning of a word. Why? They have the same right to marry a man or a woman of the opposite sex as everyone else, they don't want to, their choice. That's not unequal rights it is refused rights, their choice. If Gays want a union of some sort for legal purposes , make a new word for it call it civil union or whatever other word they want, fine with me, Marriage is traditionally man and wife, it has not been until the last years that the definition has been corrupted by sympathetic liberals. as Kimberly pointed out it is the way nature works, even in cards a marriage is a king and queen. It's not about equal rights it's about making everyone else change existing language to their point of view, it's a turf war we made you change your meaning of marriage. The legal system could easily be amended to accept the marriage and or civil union equally to honor benefits. Even the ”Chief Justice George conceded that “as an historical matter in this state marriage has always been restricted to a union between a man and a woman.”
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
Who said anything about mating for life? ... In nature, animals overwhelmingly protect, feed and care for their young. The term "nesting" is used of humans. Humans naturally care for their young, especially mothers. Fathers as well I believe, but if that is a weaker link, all the more reason to encourage a strong father role by cultural practice.
I'm on a farm, and every wild and domestic species I can think of here is very protective of their young. Where did you come up with your list of bad animal parents?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bfh
So, are you saying that the thought of two women having sex with each other is disgusting to heterosexual men?
The porn industry would vigorously disagree and they have the bundles of money to prove that it is absolutely not disgusting,
but rather is sought out by huge numbers of hetero males.
So, it's really just the man sex that's a problem (since we're being honest).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sudo
bfh,
Re:"So, it's really just the man sex that's a problem (since we're being honest)."
Oh, OK you're right... I admit.. its the man on man thing that really makes MY skin crawl. But I still say that they should be able to have the rights to benefits and inheritance as non-pervert married couples.... even if I would prefer not to have them for neighbors exactly.
sudo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bfh
I agree that many people, upon reaching adulthood, want to connect with their biological parent (s).
But, may I remind you, that heterosexuals also avail themselves of sperm banks and paid surrogates in ever increasing numbers.
And now, due to this practice by heterosexuals, we have an ethical and moral dilemma with regards to frozen embryos.
However, no one seems to question the right of heterosexuals to engage in these practices,
so why should it be any different for homosexuals.
If it's a bad practice, then let's focus on the practice itself and not the sexual orientation of the participants.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bfh
An honest reply, I can respect that!
But (ya know, there's always a but) I know of some pretty perverted married couples, that I would prefer not to have as neighbors.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Why doesn't everybody just finally wise up and act exactly like me?
Jeezus, you guys just don't get it. Any actions contrary to the way I act or would approve are obviously debauched and repellent and should be prohibited at all costs.
And - by extension - this applies to any condemned activities enumerated by my god of choice, be it Holy Thunderer, Flying Spaghetti Monster, or whatever Diety Du Jour I'm currently enamored with...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
Ayep...I was kinda wondering when we would end up with the het perv discussion...it's just how this place seems to go at times...extending (no pun intended) one topic into something vaguely related...extended again to something else until the original thread is lost in the noise. Shall we just legislate that only sex in the female missionary position is legal and then only acceptable on Saturday mornings after being given the blessing of the "Holy Thunderer?"
I gotta be honest...the idea of man on man is a distinct turn off to me...but exactly what affect does legalizing gay marriage have on me? As near as I can tell pretty much zero...now you might say that if a gay couple moved into my little redneck neighborhood (theoretically) my proper value might go down - well guess what - whether their "union" is legal or not is immaterial - their still going to live together. Will it change my tax base? Not likely. Will it change my employment opportunities - flat no - it's already a federal mandate you can't discriminate on that issue - whether gay or het. Oh dear! What if my children see a gay couple?!?!?! I got news for ya - if you live in San Diego and have teens - they've already seen them. Somehow didn't make my kids turn gay.....or turn to the "evil god of gay lust and hedonism." So if there is no affect on me (and family) what's the big deal? You'd make more social progress with a thread that discusses female genital mutilation in a large number of countries. Now THAT I would agree is a crime against humanity and nature.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ductape
Islamaphobic!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
It's called Animal Planet. Call your cable service provider.
If they don't have it, you apparently know how to use some of the internets. Google-loogle.
If that doesn't work... do you know the dewey decimal system? Be careful though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
So this is more about the rights to a definition? So they can go ahead and have a "union", and live together, and get all the benefits of what you call a marriage, etc etc, as long as they don't call it a "marriage"?
If there is one thing history can teach us about words is that they change and their definitions change. If not now, then the next generation. Of course by then we might all be saying, "we're goin' to the Chizzy to get mizzied."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
God is not gonna "bless" california because of this legal decision...
God has already given his opinion on homosexuality (as previously noted)...
hey, little ham-ster... this is not a matter of "demonization" (although i do note that the use of this language term is powerful... as well as the term "scapegoat")personally, i do not believe that homosexuals have cornered the market on what is "really wrong in america"...
i have also had the same experience... they have the potential to be parents IF they use heterosexual people's children... (or perhaps if they use a "donor" or sperm bank... which in that case (as rhino has already pointed out) they have already created a "broken home" by definition...we definitely are changing our society by redefining basic words like "marriage" and "parenting"...
IF this really were the case, then all of those species listed would be extinct...and clearly, there are no cases in the animal world where same sex animals mate and raise offspring...
that's because homosexuality is against nature...
this is absolutely an experiment...and in the cases i know of, an experiment gone bad...
i know of cases where homosexuals adopted children... and even at the young age of 7 and 8, those children are in counseling for a variety of issues...
looky here!... i agree with whitedove!peace,
jen-o
Edited by jen-oLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ductape
Sure it's a strawman argument if you say so, just to shut up the other side. There are already cases filed in other states and courts to get plural marriages legalized. There are also movements to lower marriage age when consent of parents is given. But it is all strawmen because you say so. NAMBLA is waiting in the wings, I am sure they will also use the strawman argument of pedophiles are born not made. Just because you don't see an association doesn't mean there isn't one. But, I do have to agree the whole gay marriage thing is not that big of a deal, the moral decay of this country in the name of "what happens in the bedroom" is private just keeps getting drug into the light of day. Gay and lesbian are not protected status by federal law, neither is liberal or conservative. Depends on state and local law. If Ernie and Adam want to get married most places in this country have no laws to prevent firing them. There might be a few burgs and little spots with "chop shops" that say you can't do that; but there is nothing federal.
Edited by DuctapeLink to comment
Share on other sites
likeaneagle
Your right Rhino, I added very little to this topic..My precepts are based on real life issues from my experience of 50 plus years..
the fabric of life has changed so much that it realy concerns me what will this life be like when my grandchildren grow up..when I get some that is..and that I can teach them to love, but to listen to thier gut feeling about these things. It has a strong hold on our young and the old..
It seems that we may be loosing the true strength of a man, and the delicate nature of a woman..
Oh well...my taxes arent changing..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
now I see
Holding up heterosexual marriage up like some sort of testament of all that's good and pure is no beacon of truth, the facts are that 50% of all marriages today end in divorce, what's so good about that?
I know plenty of good souls who happen to be gay, who have jobs, contribute to society and are over 40 years old and are as settled as any hetero couple. They do not operate on the frindge of society, are not pervs, some even have children.
I just can't fathom why so many christians have this loathing obsession whith gay people, some sects even believe they will have no part in heaven, that kind of hatred shows through, it is no witness for God. Society's easy targets these days are gays, fat people and mexicans, somehow some people feel justified to loathe them.
What California did doesn't rewrite the bible, in fact it has little to do with the bible, it has to do with a state recognized contract, and equality in terms of legal and human services afforded under that contract.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bfh
What does that mean - God isn't going to bless California?
What's he going to do to it? Rain fire and brimstone down upon it? Curse it with pestilence and plague?
Cause an earthquake of unimaginable magnitude and kill off hundreds of thousands of people?
So, your god is an out of control 3 year old that when he doesn't get his way, he throws a no holds barred temper tantrum?
That reminds of the TWI rap: if you leave TWI God's not going to bless you; you'll be a grease spot by midnight. Well that turned out to be a lie.
I really want know, I hear people say this kind of stuff all the time, but never give any specific consequences. So what, exactly does that mean? What's going to happen?
Allegedly God gave his opinion on adultery too, in Leviticus 20:10, "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife-with the wife of his neighbor - both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."
Must be put to death - the same punishment as homosexuality. Apparently, this god puts adultery and homosexuality on the same level of sin - a sin requiring death.
In the U. S. more than 80% of spouses say they have committed adultery at least once. So, according to your standard, those people are not worthy to be parents, or even to be married. In fact, they are worthy of being stoned to death. Well, that should make for a lot of single parent families or no parent families.
Of course, it might be asking too much of heterosexuals to clean up their own back yard.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
likeaneagle
I know many non confessed, non christian taxpayers to have concerns about this uprising as well..so much for catorgorizing. I welcome thier intelect as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bfh
jen-o replied:
So what? I have had a totally different experience with gays and lesbians. And I'll bet a dollar to a doughnut
that I've known a heck of a lot more gays and lesbians than you have - so my experience should count for more,
since we are going by our experiences as a standard for truth.
For instance, I know one lesbian couple that has been together for 36 years and raised two fine upstanding
children from one of the women's prior heterosexual marriage. Both children graduated from Ivy League schools
and have good careers. Both are now in heterosexual marriages and one of the children just made them both grandmas.
But yeah, being raised by lesbians ruins a kid's life.
And I'm sure your current attitude toward gays and lesbians doesn't color your experience at all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sushi
The relevant part is at 6:18, however, enjoy the whole thing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
likeaneagle
I dont think this thread is based on popularity BTH..Im glad you know more gay or lesbians than I do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bfh
Sushi:
Gotta love Lewis!
Thanks for the humor...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
No it's about not perverting a language for your own selfless point, for a Na Na Na Na Na moment. If everyone changed words because they don't like how they feel we would be in trouble trying to communicate . There is no point to changing a word that communicates. Even today as we discover new things we also add new words to coincide with them we don't change other words as a rule for no point. When computers came along Gee we added a new word we did not call them TV's just because they had a screen. Why because we already had a word for what a TV is. The only point for changing the definition of marriage is so they can have an" in your face moment" against the culture. Getting benefits which I think they deserve as much as the next, and it appears that most here agree, can be accomplished without perverting the language. Marriage can represent man and woman, civil union can represent man and man or woman and woman. animal union can represent animal and human :blink: It explains what each is while passing no judgment on each.
By the way ,if you haven't noticed history has not changed the definition for many generations or for many other words for that matter.
Wonders never cease.......
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.