241 replies to this topic

[Ives]

Listen to this song:

The Game of Love (click)

I hope I made my point
Peace out ------->

While I completely disagree, the song was hillarious.

[Justin]

I dont like the idea of homosexual marriages. Anyone remember Sodom and Gamorrah? We all know what happened there (If you ever read part of the bible).

http://www.christian...r/abr-a007.html Is proof of Sodom and Gamorrah's existance. For those who dont know, Sodom and Gamorrah was not spared by God because of their homosexuality and immoral acts. Had Abraham been able to find 10 righteous people God would have spared the city. He found 1.

I'm not gonna lie. That makes me want to slap you.

@Tetiel: I guess I am a hipocrite <_>


Ahhh... All this talk about the bible makes me crazy

[Alex]

Haha still doesnt affect you though xD
Seriosly someone wants to be gay, let them be gay. Who cares. World's over populated anyway.
The worlds population will never be more then 49% gay anyways.

Should other religions be outlawed because people think they are bad or wrong?

[Ives]

AliasXNeo - From what I understand, you missed the point. Accepting someone to be gay (acting upon homosexual tendency) and agreeing with it is two different things. Not everyone in the legal countries agree with it, but they do accept those who enjoy what they enjoy (save the small amount of people who disown and/or beat their children for it.) It doesn't mean a man will be able to marry an animal, dead body, or child. For example, you probably don't agree with Casilla being an atheist. Doesn't mean you can't look past her beliefs and be friendly to her.

Edited by Reeshu, 08 May 2006 - 07:50 PM.

[RandomNameIgnoreIt]

Let them have at it. They couldn't make any more of a mockery of it than men and women already have. Why stop them from doing it on the grounds that a proper marriage is between a man and a woman, when most of our citizenry is barely capable (if they're capable at all) of sustaining a marriage as it is supposed to be.

Perhaps gay marriage is a sin in some of your eyes, but with the crappy divorce rates in this age, if they can stay together and have a healthy relationship, I think they are helping marriage.

On topic, I think it's bad. Basically all do to religious beliefs, I think it would be alot easier to handle my issue with homosexuality if it were to stay illegal. Making it legal would put all the more pressure on me.

If only Christians crusaded to uphold the sanctity of heterosexual marriage as much as they crusaded against the marriage of homosexuals...

Edited by BrknPhoenix, 08 May 2006 - 08:09 PM.

[amyjia]

I dont like the idea of homosexual marriages. Anyone remember Sodom and Gamorrah? We all know what happened there (If you ever read part of the bible).

http://www.christian...r/abr-a007.html Is proof of Sodom and Gamorrah's existance. For those who dont know, Sodom and Gamorrah was not spared by God because of their homosexuality and immoral acts. Had Abraham been able to find 10 righteous people God would have spared the city. He found 1.

Edit: I forgot the main point I wanted to make...

Mariages is what I ant to avoid. I wouldnt mind if they recieved teh same benefits as being married people, but do not call it married. Call it a Civil Union or whatever.

Well I really don't think the story of Sodom and Gamorrah is really about homosexuality. I think it's about rape and the town not being hospitable(which Christians are supposed to be). The men of Sodom saw what they thought were "two travelers" come into town. Lot automatically welcomes them into his home as his guests, while the other men of the town follow the "travelers" to the house because they want to rape them. This is why Lot and his family were saved. They were the only ones who welcomed the "travelers" (aka angels) and the only ones who were hospitable. In the Bible it says "outcrys" reached to God about Sodom and Gamorrah. This could mean that many travelers going through those cities had been victims and their "cries" reached up to God.

If your a Christian, your supposed to be friendly and welcome people into your home, not umm.. rape them.

In conclusion, I don't think the case of Sodom and Gamorrah should be used to condemn gay marriage, nor homosexuals themselves.

Edited by amyjia, 09 May 2006 - 01:18 AM.

[RandomNameIgnoreIt]

Okay wtf. All I am saying is that if HomeSexuality were to be legal, in a debate like this alot of people would think that if it's legal, then it's probably good. Whereas it's not legal, so that thought never crosses their mind. That's why it makes it harder. I have no clue what your evolving my statement into.

What I was evolving it into... Is that in these homosexual marriage arguments, there is inevitably someone religious that will be strongly against it because their relgion says so. Which is fine. But the problem arises in the fact that the logic is typically based upon "marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman" and it says so in the bible and gays make the baby jesus cry, etc. etc.

However: Heterosexuals do have a right to be married, yet handle it terrible in large part. In the United States, anywhere from 43-50% of marriages will end in divorce (souce: http://www.divorcere....org/rates.html )

I've always felt the religious were standing on extremely shaky ground on this issue, because heterosexuals in large part don't even seem to be capable of handling marriage. Why is there not equal furor over that? And lets not forget infidelity, for which an accurate measure would be difficult to even find.

My point is that from a religious standpoint, marriage has already been put to such shame that at this point, having more monogomy from anyone would be a benefit.

The sacred institution that was marriage is no longer sacred, and as such likening it to the biblical concept of marriage is now mostly pointless. Anyone against gay marriage should be equally against divorce and infidelity, yet it seems the heterosexual crimes get pushed by the wayside while the debate goes on about the monogomy of gays forever.

I'm not trying to single you out here, rather the entire religious group that is against gay marriage on the whole. I think one of the biggest fears of the Christian leadership in America is that if gay marriage were legalized, they would do better at it than we would

Now, I'm not overly sympathetic to gays or anything, rather I am disgusted by the oversight of marriage in general in this country. To ignore the problems for so long, then dare to cite it as sacred to keep gays from marrying is quite frankly ridiculous. Marriage in the United States stopped being sacred long ago, and that has to change. That has to be what we are thinking about.

[.:Orange:.]

If only Christians crusaded to uphold the sanctity of heterosexual marriage as much as they crusaded against the marriage of homosexuals...

I agree. And what I hate most is that those Christians never take time to look from the viewpoint of the homosexual person, instead claiming them 'immoral,' or 'a sinner.' What a great way to get them to stop! >.>

I also hate that alot of Christians act like idiots and give me a bad name. D:

Edited by .:Orange:., 09 May 2006 - 06:07 AM.

[.:Orange:.]

You sound just like a person I met the other day. Assuming because a christian calls homosexuality a sin, that gay person is instantly like the devil. I have homosexual friends, and I like them all, but just because I think what they are doing wrong doesn't mean I hate them. So watch your mouth.

Hmmwha? I was talking about some Christians, who want to 'stop the evil homosexuals,' by calling them immoral. What I meant was that it's pretty much a useless attempt for them to stop someone who they think is doing something 'evil,' by telling them "You're sinning! Repent!" I wasn't saying you can't be friends with them and still think it's wrong, I was just talking about a specific group of people.

Anyway, I'm a Christian, so I definetly wasn't referring to all Christians in general.

Edited by .:Orange:., 09 May 2006 - 09:57 AM.

[Ives]

"Love the sinner, hate the sin."

- Some minister

Anyways, onto my point. Your argument about the fact rules should still be followed is excellent in it's own way. However, as I've said before, such rules shouldn't apply in somewhere such as the United States, where morals from the bible shouldn't take much roll in allowing civil marriage. Because civil marriage isn't by any means a Christian marriage, it would allow them to be happy, and the christians to not have a problem.

From what I understand, quite a few homosexuals do hell of a lot better than some straight couples. Take Raymond Burr and Robert Benevides for example. They met in the 50's and were together for about 40 years, only shadowed by Burrs death. Another example would be Gore Vidal and Howard Austen. They've been together for 58 years.

The fact is: There are so many same sex couples out there that have a good enough relationship that is worthy of a marriage of some sort. The fact that there are very few active homosexuals also is a plus.

[Hawk]

"Love the sinner, hate the sin."

- Some minister

Quoted for emphasis because I like that quote.

The fact is: There are so many same sex couples out there that have a good enough relationship that is worthy of a marriage of some sort. The fact that there are very few active homosexuals also is a plus.

So? A few have thrived, that proves...?

Why must homosexual couples be considered married? Typically, that was people in the Church did to a person of the OPPOSITE sex to show their devotion. Please note OPPOSITE.

Let homosexuals have the same benefits of being married, with out the title of a "Married couple".

[Ives]

Quoted for emphasis because I like that quote.
So? A few have thrived, that proves...?

Why must homosexual couples be considered married? Typically, that was people in the Church did to a person of the OPPOSITE sex to show their devotion. Please note OPPOSITE.

Let homosexuals have the same benefits of being married, with out the title of a "Married couple".

Much more than a few. A majority. Those are just examples of a few famous gay couples (as I wouldn't go on about about how John doe and Steve Smith are doing.)

If its just a word, is it any different? That's what I don't understand. Recognizing a same sex couple married under the Church of God compared to a same sex couple married under a civil marriage should be distinct difference. Apparently not. Though it's the same rights anyways, as you said. So I'm just trying to intepret it. (I suck.) But (No offense) it does remind me of the South park where the Colorado Govenor made his desicion (at first) about gay marriage:

Governor: "Well, to not piss off the mountain folks or the gays, ive decided to change the name of marriage for homosexuals, but make the same benefits."
Crowd: "---"
Govenor: "Buttbuddies. So rather than saying "Will you marry me?" say "Will you be my buttbuddy?". Instead of saying "man and man," say "buttbudies." Pretty simple?"

Edited by Reeshu, 09 May 2006 - 12:31 PM.

[Tetiel]

And just because we are wrose then we were in the past, it does not make any previous rules pointless. That's like saying because we have so many people murdered a day, the law is pointless now and needs to be tossed out. If that's what you ment.

No... that would be something completely different. Murder is infringing the rights of a person to live. People marrying others is not really hurting anyone... except really themselves if you believe they will be punished for it. (not saying they will or will not be, I don't want to get into a fight about that). But that is why this is not such an issue to me. It isn't hurting anyways as far as I can see so comparing it to murder is quite the false analogy as far as legality goes.

[Frizzle]

Governor: "Well, to not piss off the mountain folks or the gays, ive decided to change the name of marriage for homosexuals, but make the same benefits."
Crowd: "---"
Govenor: "Buttbuddies. So rather than saying "Will you marry me?" say "Will you be my buttbuddy?". Instead of saying "man and man," say "buttbudies." Pretty simple?"

Lesbian in crowd: What about lesbians?
Governer: Who gives a fuck about dykes?

[Tetiel]

I have a question for you (I don't need answers from someone else) Tetiel. If a person was in a burning building, on the verge of death, but you knew you had a chance at getting to them, would you do it? If someone was hanging off a cliff, and there was a possibility of saving them, would you do it? Even if you didn't know the person.
Once there are about half as many homosexual relationships as there are straight relationships, and they are still thriving like right now, I will consider taking the thought that homosexual relationships do better then straight relationships.

Yes, I would. But you're not understanding... our government isn't a theocracy no matter if Christians like it or not so I really don't believe that's a relevant question. I am talking about legality.

[Ives]

Once there are about half as many homosexual relationships as there are straight relationships, and they are still thriving like right now, I will consider taking the thought that homosexual relationships do better then straight relationships.

Not what I was saying. I was saying that they could live up to full matter just like any straight couple.

[Will]

Quoted for emphasis because I like that quote.
So? A few have thrived, that proves...?

Why must homosexual couples be considered married? Typically, that was people in the Church did to a person of the OPPOSITE sex to show their devotion. Please note OPPOSITE.

Let homosexuals have the same benefits of being married, with out the title of a "Married couple".

So basically you oppose it on no moral, ethical or logical grounds; rather you just can't stand letting gay people have the same word as straight people? <blink>

[Hawk]

So basically you oppose it on no moral, ethical or logical grounds; rather you just can't stand letting gay people have the same word as straight people? <blink>

Im against it, but theres no way to abolish it, its like Communism. I believe in the Domino theory and containment.

I also dont like how they want to use the word marriage as traditionally that meant a man and woman. Unless they get sex changes they are not a man and woman. Therefore they need a new term for being butt buddies.

[Tetiel]

But is not the domino theory a slippery slope fallacy?

[Hawk]

But is not the domino theory a slippery slope fallacy?

Yeah it is, its more the policy of containment.

[amyjia]

Therefore they need a new term for being butt buddies.

QFE.. lol that made me laugh..

FYI, not all gay men pratice anal sex. That is really just a stereotype. Actually, many straight couples "indulge" in anal sex.

Some girls at my school will even have oral and/or anal sex rather than vaginal because they feel they will still be virgins.. but that's another topic..

[bluewater]

I'm not commenting on any other posts but I will put in my two cents. I personaly don't have much a problem with gay marriage. I think of it like this, it's a lot like racism. Sure it was huge a while ago but slowly and surely most of the hate dropped. Same thing will happen with gay marriage. I have no doubt in my mind that will happen.

So if marrying makes them happy why should we say no? Life is the pursuit of being happy, let them be happy.

[emme80]

I think the term "marriage" applies between a man and a woman. Having "Civil Unities" does not bother me. With vocabulary out of the way, I think the government should apply the same tax laws and such to Gay Marriages as they would Normal Marriages. I think of this topic in the same way I do illegal immigration. Pay your taxes and you can stay.

EDITTED FOR TYPOS

was gonna post the same thing, but you put it better then i would have so.. props.

marriage is between a man and a woman in the eyes of god. let the homosexuals have civil unities and have all the same rights and stuff, but one question.

should they be aloud to adopt???