Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 02, 2014, 07:31:44 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  Political Debate (Moderator: Beet)
| | |-+  Gay Marriage- a general discussion.
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 15 Print
Author Topic: Gay Marriage- a general discussion.  (Read 30168 times)
Ryan
ryanmasc
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 332


View Profile
« on: November 19, 2003, 09:04:15 am »
Ignore

THIS discussion thread is to debate the issue of gay marriage as a societal issue. There is a separate link on the 2004 Presidential Election section to discuss the "electoral impact" of this issue.

As for myself I'm socially moderate. I support the most stringent punishment for hate crimes or any violence against gays (as I would for hate crimes against ANYBODY), I support efforts to combat discrimination against gays in employment and pretty much anything which INDIVIDUALS are entitled to as American citizens. (including allowing them to do whatever the hell they want in their bedrooms)

I do draw the line at gay marriage. I believe we have the responsibility to maintain some sort of social order and that tampering with the man & woman definition of marriage has serious long-term consequences.

I would undoubtedly vote against it in a referendum and would expect my congressional representatives to do the same. I cant say it would be the sole factor determining my vote but it would be a reasonably or even very important factor. How about the rest??
Logged

Quote
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26887


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

View Profile
« Reply #1 on: December 20, 2003, 12:22:34 pm »
Ignore

Well, it doesn't seem your idea about different threads worked, huh? I will make a comment here anyway. I agree with most of your points but I don't think marriage should be the state's business anyway. In Germany you get "married" by a state official making you legally married, and then marry in church (if you want too). The first should be open for everyone, the second is up to the churches and not to the government.
Logged

This place really has become a cesspool of degenerate whores...

Economic score: +0.9
Social score: -2.61

In MN for fantasy stuff, member of the most recently dissolved centrist party.
tweed
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35556
United States


Political Matrix
E: -8.52, S: -8.00

View Profile
« Reply #2 on: December 20, 2003, 01:44:32 pm »
Ignore

Well, it doesn't seem your idea about different threads worked, huh? I will make a comment here anyway. I agree with most of your points but I don't think marriage should be the state's business anyway. In Germany you get "married" by a state official making you legally married, and then marry in church (if you want too). The first should be open for everyone, the second is up to the churches and not to the government.
Agreed.
Logged

there's no ghosts in the graveyard, that's not where they live
they live in between a, 'what is' and 'what if?'
CHRISTOPHER MICHAE
Guest
« Reply #3 on: December 20, 2003, 02:11:47 pm »

THIS discussion thread is to debate the issue of gay marriage as a societal issue. There is a separate link on the 2004 Presidential Election section to discuss the "electoral impact" of this issue.

As for myself I'm socially moderate. I support the most stringent punishment for hate crimes or any violence against gays (as I would for hate crimes against ANYBODY), I support efforts to combat discrimination against gays in employment and pretty much anything which INDIVIDUALS are entitled to as American citizens. (including allowing them to do whatever the hell they want in their bedrooms)

I do draw the line at gay marriage. I believe we have the responsibility to maintain some sort of social order and that tampering with the man & woman definition of marriage has serious long-term consequences.

I would undoubtedly vote against it in a referendum and would expect my congressional representatives to do the same. I cant say it would be the sole factor determining my vote but it would be a reasonably or even very important factor. How about the rest??
I agree with you Ryan. I am against GAY MARRIAGE, NOT AGAINST GAYS. However if one was to read in the BIBLE, ROMANS, CHAPTER ONE, it tells us what GOD thinks about Homosexuality. I myself struggle...
Logged
bergie72
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 379
Germany


Political Matrix
E: 4.77, S: -3.48


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: May 25, 2004, 12:55:44 pm »
Ignore

THIS discussion thread is to debate the issue of gay marriage as a societal issue. There is a separate link on the 2004 Presidential Election section to discuss the "electoral impact" of this issue.

As for myself I'm socially moderate. I support the most stringent punishment for hate crimes or any violence against gays (as I would for hate crimes against ANYBODY), I support efforts to combat discrimination against gays in employment and pretty much anything which INDIVIDUALS are entitled to as American citizens. (including allowing them to do whatever the hell they want in their bedrooms)

I do draw the line at gay marriage. I believe we have the responsibility to maintain some sort of social order and that tampering with the man & woman definition of marriage has serious long-term consequences.

I would undoubtedly vote against it in a referendum and would expect my congressional representatives to do the same. I cant say it would be the sole factor determining my vote but it would be a reasonably or even very important factor. How about the rest??

People used to say the same thing about a mixed-race marriage.  How long ago were blacks forced to sit in the back of the bus, drink from different water fountains or use separate bathrooms?  And now doctors in MI won't have to treat people if they diasgree with their lifestyle/practices?  Where does it stop?  If you're gay?  If you're having an affair?  If you live with your boy/girlfriend?  You have an earring?!  

I'm not equating GLBT issues with race issues, but there are some similarities between the two.  

Just my $.02 worth   :-)
Logged

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -0.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.36
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18305
United States


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: May 25, 2004, 02:14:41 pm »
Ignore

In Germany you get "married" by a state official making you legally married, and then marry in church (if you want too). The first should be open for everyone, the second is up to the churches and not to the government.

Off topic:  I find it odd that people feel the church has any say so regarding the recognition of particluar marriage.  If God gave men and women the right to marry, then why do they need church approval?
Logged

Do not fight with one another over my banning.  I've enjoyed the time I have spent with all of you, but the time really has come for me to leave.  It is what I want.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9Y_GLT4_9I

I looked over Jordan, and what did I see?
Coming for to carry me home,
A band of angels coming after me,
Coming for to carry me home.

Swing low, sweet chariot,
Coming for to carry me home.
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18305
United States


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: May 25, 2004, 04:18:24 pm »
Ignore

People used to say the same thing about a mixed-race marriage.

Interacial marriage was only forbidden in the OT - and only forbidden between Jew and Gentile.  Even the OT didn't forbid a white Gentile from marrying a black Gentile.  Now, in the NT, even the wall between Jew and Gentile was been torn down.

But marriage in the bible, OT and NT, has always been defined as between a man and a woman.

So, just because people ignored the bible to forbid interracial marriage, doesn't mean we should again ignore the bible by allowing gay marriage.
Logged

Do not fight with one another over my banning.  I've enjoyed the time I have spent with all of you, but the time really has come for me to leave.  It is what I want.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9Y_GLT4_9I

I looked over Jordan, and what did I see?
Coming for to carry me home,
A band of angels coming after me,
Coming for to carry me home.

Swing low, sweet chariot,
Coming for to carry me home.
PBrunsel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9626


View Profile WWW
« Reply #7 on: May 25, 2004, 07:02:21 pm »
Ignore

I oppose gay marriage because of what happened in Sweden. The divorce rate went out of the roof as did births out of wedlock. The Swiss Government blamed gay marriage for their problems with marraige.
Logged


"I know that the Lord is always on the side of the right. But it is my constant anxiety and prayer that I and this nation should be on the Lord's side."
-President Abraham Lincoln, December 1862
Lunar
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30616
Ireland, Republic of
View Profile
« Reply #8 on: May 25, 2004, 07:21:22 pm »
Ignore

I oppose gay marriage because of what happened in Sweden. The divorce rate went out of the roof as did births out of wedlock. The Swiss Government blamed gay marriage for their problems with marraige.

Swiss government is blaming their problems on Sweden?  Wink
(Below the belt, I know Wink)

I think you'll find that births out of wedlock have increased in every country.  Many couples have been using Civil Unions rather than the tradional form of marriage in Sweden, which increases births out of wedlock but does not mean that the babies aren't being taken care of by two loving parents.

You say:
Gay marriage -> erosion of the family -> divorce, etc.

I question whether or not allowing gay marriage somehow affects ME in my home in rural California.  Do I suddenly value marriage less because two guys got married?  Do I suddenly love my wife less?

My personal position is that the government shouldn't be involved in recognizing marriage at all.  Leave that to the church.  Have some sort of union program that any two people can use.  You and your mother  can recieve a union and be recognized as an economic unit and recieve hospital benefits if you want.  Basically what Gustaf said.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2004, 07:23:41 pm by Lunar »Logged

this is real
Lunar
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30616
Ireland, Republic of
View Profile
« Reply #9 on: May 25, 2004, 07:22:51 pm »
Ignore

So, just because people ignored the bible to forbid interracial marriage, doesn't mean we should again ignore the bible by allowing gay marriage.

What about Athiests/Agnostics, Muslims, Budhists, Hindus, Jews, etc?
Logged

this is real
Tory
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1299


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: May 25, 2004, 08:35:04 pm »
Ignore

So, just because people ignored the bible to forbid interracial marriage, doesn't mean we should again ignore the bible by allowing gay marriage.

What about Athiests/Agnostics, Muslims, Budhists, Hindus, Jews, etc?

Muslims believe homosexuality is wrong, as do Buddhists, Hindus, and Jews.
Logged
migrendel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1681
Italy


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: May 25, 2004, 09:28:23 pm »
Ignore

We are on a strange promontory of history, where we shall be forced to forge a new direction or fall into old habits. It is my suggestion that we do the former.

Fifty years ago, our nation was segregated. A standard of separate but equal was thought to be acceptable. We finally moved away from thinking, after a national crisis of conscience. Today, we must reject this Jim Crow of human sexuality. We must realize once again that separate is inherently unequal, because it reinforces a feeling of group inferiority. We must oppose the Plessy v. Ferguson of our era, civil unions, because they send the same message that we sent to little black children when they had to go to dilapidated schools. And after all we've been through as nation, and how deep our yet unsealed wounds are, I don't see how we could start another war over a cultural issue, this time revolving around a scarlet H. Shades of Hesther Prynne with a female lover.

And some, like Ryan and PBrunsel, have said that same-sex marriage would undermine social order. But whose idea of social order? Is it really up to the government to adjudicate the desirability of such a union? Because I'll tell you, genders don't fall in love, people do. Should we really cudgel our brains over rising rates of divorce and illegitimacy? That might be the currency of thought out in Iowa, but where I come from, we view love as more important than a scrap of paper proclaiming husband and wife, or any other permutation our society might allow, and children are gifts to be wanted, loved, and cherished, regardless of whether their parents are married or not. Are you, the stalwart defender of "the defenseless unborn" going to say that the birth of an illegitimate child is less desirable?

We have history to write. It can remember us as a fair and broad-minded people who valued and treated their neighbors as equals, even if they were different. Or we can be judged harshly just like those who handed down Dred Scott, those who opposed suffrage, those who put Jim Crow in place, and those who confined the Japanese to concentration camps, because we were too myopic to justice to recognize the eminent wisdom of civil rights. I know which side I'm on.
Logged

Economic Left/Right: -10.00
Social Left/Right: -10.00

Registered in Massachusetts as a Democrat for Fantasy Elections, though now living in Rome.
Lunar
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30616
Ireland, Republic of
View Profile
« Reply #12 on: May 26, 2004, 01:32:43 am »
Ignore

So, just because people ignored the bible to forbid interracial marriage, doesn't mean we should again ignore the bible by allowing gay marriage.

What about Athiests/Agnostics, Muslims, Budhists, Hindus, Jews, etc?

Muslims believe homosexuality is wrong, as do Buddhists, Hindus, and Jews.

You missed one.  And the other religions tend to ignore the Bible.

Logged

this is real
California Dreamer
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 446


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: May 26, 2004, 02:18:40 am »
Ignore

This all comes down to the nature or nurture argument.

Is being gay a choice, or something ingrained into some people.

Why would people 'choose' to be gay. Most realise they are gay as teenagers, why would a teenager 'choose' to be an outcast (homosexuality is the leading cause of teenage suicide).

If people are 'born gay' then why should society deny them the right to marry, its like denying people with red hair or the left handed.


This is one of those issues that it is hard to find people against who have a family member or friend who are effected by it. THis is why Cheney is for civil unions and gay rights, and why Nancy Reagan is for stem cell research. Its easy to be against things that happen to 'other people', but when it hits home people understand and learn.
Logged

The Duke
JohnD.Ford
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9399


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

View Profile
« Reply #14 on: May 26, 2004, 03:47:57 am »
Ignore

Gay marriage will erode traditional marriage.  We already see this erosion happening in this very thread.  Believe it or not, marriage isn't just about love.  You can be in love and not be married.  For those who are asking, "Will legalizing gay marriage make me love my wife less?", I ask them, "Does thefact that gay marriage is not legal make a gay person less in love with their partner?"  Of course not, because the two are not unbreakably related.

The purpose of marraige therefore is misunderstood by those who argue for gay marriage.  They view the world, as most liberal minded people do, as a search for pleasure and gratification, where the self is the center of all things.  Conservatives tend to view the world differently, and put the self behind tradition, which should be passed from generation to generation as a guarantor of stability.

For liberals, marraige is a convenient thing that they can use to force society to accept lifestyles it would otherwise find unacceptable and to sanction their right to personalized bliss.  Conservatives view marriage as an institution with a societal purpose, in this case the primary purpose is to provide legal structures that are condusive to raising children.

In Scandanavia, we see the result of the liberal view winning out.  The number of out-of wedlock births, single parent families, and broken homes is on the rise.  Denmark legalized gay marriage in 1989, Norway inn 1993, and Sweden in 1994.  The result has been a near total collapse of marriage in Scandinavia.  A majority of children born in Denmark have unmarried parents, including 60% of first-born children.  During the nineties, the decade when gay marriage was accepted in Norway and Sweden, the rates for out of wedlock birth rose from 39% to 50% and 49% to 54% respectively.  This all happened during a decade when American out of wedlock birth rates leveled off.  In fact, Sweden (54%), Norway (49%), and Denmark (46%) represent the second, third, and fourth highest rates of illegitimacy in the industrialized world.  Only Iceland is higher.  For the record, the US has a rate of 32%.  It can be said that in Scandanavia, the definition of what is a family no longer focuses on marraige, but on parenthood.  Usually single parenthood, since without marraige the traditional legal bonds that keep father from walking away from their responsibilities are gone.

In other words, gay marriage has destroyed real marriage in Scandinavia in less than a decade.  If this is what you want for America, by all means, suport gay marriage.
Logged

Shut you hole... Conservatism is dead. I hope I get to see your head paraded on a pike with it.
Tory
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1299


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: May 26, 2004, 05:57:33 am »
Ignore

So, just because people ignored the bible to forbid interracial marriage, doesn't mean we should again ignore the bible by allowing gay marriage.

What about Athiests/Agnostics, Muslims, Budhists, Hindus, Jews, etc?

Muslims believe homosexuality is wrong, as do Buddhists, Hindus, and Jews.

You missed one.  And the other religions tend to ignore the Bible.



Of course they ignore the Bible, but they do not ignore thier own teachings. I am certainly not saying we should use the Bible as our law, but that it is only right that we take a glance at all of the great religious traditions of the world and go from there. As for athiests, they have no moral compass and therefore we cannot use thier beliefs as guidelines for our society. I am not religious in the least, but it is necessary to uphold major the major traditions of our society, such as heterosexual marriage.
Logged
Wakie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3809


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: May 26, 2004, 09:54:19 am »
Ignore


Of course they ignore the Bible, but they do not ignore thier own teachings. I am certainly not saying we should use the Bible as our law, but that it is only right that we take a glance at all of the great religious traditions of the world and go from there. As for athiests, they have no moral compass and therefore we cannot use thier beliefs as guidelines for our society. I am not religious in the least, but it is necessary to uphold major the major traditions of our society, such as heterosexual marriage.

I disagree with the statement that atheists have "no moral compass".  Just because one does not believe in a deity does not mean that they do not have an understanding of right and wrong.  The concept of right and wrong does not stem purely out of religion.

That being said, Buddhism does not believe same-gender sexual acts are inherently sinful.  Now, in my experience, Buddhists are some of the most centered and morally upright people I've ever encountered.

I cannot find any non-religious reason to believe that it is wrong to deny 2 consenting adults the right to be married (even if they are the same gender).
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18305
United States


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: May 26, 2004, 10:14:31 am »
Ignore

This all comes down to the nature or nurture argument.

We all, without choice, were born with a sinful nature.  And the bible defines every sin within the realm of that innate sinful nature.  That is why we must be born again, not of flesh, but of the Spirit of God.

So, should I have the right to steal, murder and cheat just because I was born with that desire?  Absolutely NOT.

Therefore, since "this all comes down to the nature or nurture argument," the argument appears to be over!
« Last Edit: May 26, 2004, 11:37:25 am by jmfcst »Logged

Do not fight with one another over my banning.  I've enjoyed the time I have spent with all of you, but the time really has come for me to leave.  It is what I want.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9Y_GLT4_9I

I looked over Jordan, and what did I see?
Coming for to carry me home,
A band of angels coming after me,
Coming for to carry me home.

Swing low, sweet chariot,
Coming for to carry me home.
California Dreamer
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 446


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: May 26, 2004, 04:42:55 pm »
Ignore

using your superstition and some book written thousands of years ago as arguments related to modern legislation is completely insane.

Your personal belief system is no more or less valid that wiccans or people who think comets are spaceships.

...but you did prove my point in a way.

If homosexuals are 'born gay' then who the hell are you to tell them how to run their lives.
Logged

Tory
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1299


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: May 26, 2004, 04:43:58 pm »
Ignore


Of course they ignore the Bible, but they do not ignore thier own teachings. I am certainly not saying we should use the Bible as our law, but that it is only right that we take a glance at all of the great religious traditions of the world and go from there. As for athiests, they have no moral compass and therefore we cannot use thier beliefs as guidelines for our society. I am not religious in the least, but it is necessary to uphold major the major traditions of our society, such as heterosexual marriage.

I disagree with the statement that atheists have "no moral compass".  Just because one does not believe in a deity does not mean that they do not have an understanding of right and wrong.  The concept of right and wrong does not stem purely out of religion.

That being said, Buddhism does not believe same-gender sexual acts are inherently sinful.  Now, in my experience, Buddhists are some of the most centered and morally upright people I've ever encountered.

I cannot find any non-religious reason to believe that it is wrong to deny 2 consenting adults the right to be married (even if they are the same gender).

If someone has no deity then why would they behave in appropriate ways? Out of the goodness of thier heart? That was tried, it was called communism, and it didn't work. Buddhists(both Mahayana and Theravada) believe that oral, anal, and manual sex are very wrong, therefore they believe homosexuality is wrong.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2004, 04:57:50 pm by Tory »Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18305
United States


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: May 26, 2004, 04:58:37 pm »
Ignore

using your superstition and some book written thousands of years ago...

funny how this superstitious book written thousands of years ago has this "born that way" out flanked.

And it is easily provable since anyone who has raised kids knows that children don't have to be taught to lie and covet, rather kids do those things naturally.

Certainly, with ALL your smarts, you should be able to outwit such a silly old book.

---

If homosexuals are 'born gay' then who the hell are you to tell them how to run their lives.

They can run their lives as they see fit, just don't tell me we have to change the definition of marriage just to placate the shame of their perversion.
Logged

Do not fight with one another over my banning.  I've enjoyed the time I have spent with all of you, but the time really has come for me to leave.  It is what I want.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9Y_GLT4_9I

I looked over Jordan, and what did I see?
Coming for to carry me home,
A band of angels coming after me,
Coming for to carry me home.

Swing low, sweet chariot,
Coming for to carry me home.
California Dreamer
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 446


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: May 26, 2004, 05:01:39 pm »
Ignore

I dont need to 'oustmart' a silly book that you consider sacred, it is completely irrelevent when it comes to any modern discussion of law in a country founded on the principal that religion is irrelevent

re: perversion
I dont know where to start with this one, but I really think you need some help, you are truly a hateful person
Logged

angus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14965
View Profile
« Reply #22 on: May 26, 2004, 05:08:31 pm »
Ignore

Gay marriage will erode traditional marriage.  We already see this erosion happening in this very thread.  Believe it or not, marriage isn't just about love.  You can be in love and not be married.  For those who are asking, "Will legalizing gay marriage make me love my wife less?", I ask them, "Does thefact that gay marriage is not legal make a gay person less in love with their partner?"  Of course not, because the two are not unbreakably related.

The purpose of marraige therefore is misunderstood by those who argue for gay marriage.  They view the world, as most liberal minded people do, as a search for pleasure and gratification, where the self is the center of all things.  Conservatives tend to view the world differently, and put the self behind tradition, which should be passed from generation to generation as a guarantor of stability.

For liberals, marraige is a convenient thing that they can use to force society to accept lifestyles it would otherwise find unacceptable and to sanction their right to personalized bliss.  Conservatives view marriage as an institution with a societal purpose, in this case the primary purpose is to provide legal structures that are condusive to raising children.

In Scandanavia, we see the result of the liberal view winning out.  The number of out-of wedlock births, single parent families, and broken homes is on the rise.  Denmark legalized gay marriage in 1989, Norway inn 1993, and Sweden in 1994.  The result has been a near total collapse of marriage in Scandinavia.  A majority of children born in Denmark have unmarried parents, including 60% of first-born children.  During the nineties, the decade when gay marriage was accepted in Norway and Sweden, the rates for out of wedlock birth rose from 39% to 50% and 49% to 54% respectively.  This all happened during a decade when American out of wedlock birth rates leveled off.  In fact, Sweden (54%), Norway (49%), and Denmark (46%) represent the second, third, and fourth highest rates of illegitimacy in the industrialized world.  Only Iceland is higher.  For the record, the US has a rate of 32%.  It can be said that in Scandanavia, the definition of what is a family no longer focuses on marraige, but on parenthood.  Usually single parenthood, since without marraige the traditional legal bonds that keep father from walking away from their responsibilities are gone.

In other words, gay marriage has destroyed real marriage in Scandinavia in less than a decade.  If this is what you want for America, by all means, suport gay marriage.

John Ford,
your post was thoughtful (and provocative, even though it may not have been intended that way).  It was said that allowing intermarriage would destroy (or erode) marriage, beginning more than a hundred years ago.  In fact, a statute was passed in Massachusetts in 1913 forbidding state officials from marrying two people who were not allowed to be married in their home states.  There were debates in Boston and Washington and everyelse, but in time, it wasn't the fiery uplifting speeches from supporters that brought about acceptance (by 80+% of the US public according to Gallup) of white and nonwhite marrying, but rather the mundane.  People just got used to the idea.  If a vietnamese woman and her black husband and their little half-breed children moved in next door, would you freak?  I'm guessing not.  My bet is that it will ultimately be the mundane (rather than fiery speeches and court decisions) that bring about acceptance of gay marriage as well.  Just a thought.
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9399


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

View Profile
« Reply #23 on: May 26, 2004, 05:13:48 pm »
Ignore

angus,

I am not so sure that my argument was widely used to attack interracial marriage back in the day.  I was under the impression that the main objections to interracial marriage were either that it was unnatural for the two to marry or that it would dilute the purity of the white race.
Logged

Shut you hole... Conservatism is dead. I hope I get to see your head paraded on a pike with it.
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18305
United States


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: May 26, 2004, 05:23:00 pm »
Ignore

I dont need to 'oustmart' a silly book

Well, if it is so silly, how did it have this "born that way" argument nailed thousands of years ago?  And why is this silly book's "born that way" conclusion proved completely accurate by simply observing the behavior of every child?

---

re: perversion
I dont know where to start with this one, but I really think you need some help, you are truly a hateful person

Funny how I have never quite figured out the logic of labeling someone "hateful" simply on account of calling homosexual behavior immoral.  Why am I not labeled hateful for my exact same beliefs concerning fornication, adultery, lying, stealing, murder, etc, etc?

Who is it that loves, is it the one that is consistent, or is it the one being inconsistent?

1Cor 13:4-8 4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. 8Love never fails.

It would seem to me that love is consistent; not inconsistent like your logic.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2004, 05:26:59 pm by jmfcst »Logged

Do not fight with one another over my banning.  I've enjoyed the time I have spent with all of you, but the time really has come for me to leave.  It is what I want.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9Y_GLT4_9I

I looked over Jordan, and what did I see?
Coming for to carry me home,
A band of angels coming after me,
Coming for to carry me home.

Swing low, sweet chariot,
Coming for to carry me home.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 15 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines