Groucho, I guess it could over time. Man makes these things what they are. If man chose to make gay marriage in a church a sacrement, then it would be. Don't you think that the difficulty of undertanding this issue is the same difficulty that Southern Segregationists had over black freedom? They simply could not get past 100's of years of one minded thought.
Kerry article from the Advocate
- Thread starter Dan4510
- Start date
- Status
needtoknow said:"MG222,
You're right, let's just kill them, the Bible says so. We could also stone a few adulterers as well."
If we still lived under the LAW as they did in the Old Testament,those that are gay and those that are adulterers WOULD be stoned after being caught doing such.
Adultery is STILL wrong and so is homosexuality.Both of these sins are explained as being WRONG in both the Old and New Testaments in a way that there is little if any wiggle room to say otherwise.
needtoknow said:"if God can permit babies that have no clear cut sexual physical features then he may also permit babies to having varying degrees of sexual orientation."
I dont agree with this statement but say he did so.It would still be wrong to be gay.The Bible plainly state this.
It is wrong to steal,lie,commit adultery and kill.If we do these things,we have to answer for such.We have to pay the price and accept the consequences of our actions.
We as humans are free moral agents.We are free to choose what we do.However,we must face the consequences of our choices.We must face the outcome of our actions.
When we choose to sin against God,we must answer to him for the wrongs we do.
We as humans are given the choose as to whether we have premarital sex.To do so is called fornication.This is sin.This is also condemned in the Scriptures.If we take part in such,we must answer for it somewhere,somehow.
We have the choice everyday as to whether to follow the laws of the land.If you or I go out and rob a bank,we have broken the law.Now that we have broken the law,we must be willing to take the penalty for such.We CHOSE to break the law,we were not forced to do so.
Marriage was set up by God as the union between a man and a woman.Any deviation from such can not be a marriage.Any deviation from such is fornication,a sin.
Mankind CAN NOT override the laws of God,no matter how hard they try.
If we look at nature in mankind,common sense tells us that homosexuality is wrong.The natural physical makeup of a human being tells us that being homosexual goes against our very nature.It tells us that it is a deviation from what is normal and right.
The thing is,God condemns homosexuality.God says that it is an abomination.What does it mean for something to be abominable?
Webster's Dictionary has the following definitions for such:
1.disgusting; vile; loathsome.
2.disagreeable; very bad.
These are the definitions af a secularly written book.
[ August 16, 2004, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: motorguy222 ]
You're right, let's just kill them, the Bible says so. We could also stone a few adulterers as well."
If we still lived under the LAW as they did in the Old Testament,those that are gay and those that are adulterers WOULD be stoned after being caught doing such.
Adultery is STILL wrong and so is homosexuality.Both of these sins are explained as being WRONG in both the Old and New Testaments in a way that there is little if any wiggle room to say otherwise.
needtoknow said:"if God can permit babies that have no clear cut sexual physical features then he may also permit babies to having varying degrees of sexual orientation."
I dont agree with this statement but say he did so.It would still be wrong to be gay.The Bible plainly state this.
It is wrong to steal,lie,commit adultery and kill.If we do these things,we have to answer for such.We have to pay the price and accept the consequences of our actions.
We as humans are free moral agents.We are free to choose what we do.However,we must face the consequences of our choices.We must face the outcome of our actions.
When we choose to sin against God,we must answer to him for the wrongs we do.
We as humans are given the choose as to whether we have premarital sex.To do so is called fornication.This is sin.This is also condemned in the Scriptures.If we take part in such,we must answer for it somewhere,somehow.
We have the choice everyday as to whether to follow the laws of the land.If you or I go out and rob a bank,we have broken the law.Now that we have broken the law,we must be willing to take the penalty for such.We CHOSE to break the law,we were not forced to do so.
Marriage was set up by God as the union between a man and a woman.Any deviation from such can not be a marriage.Any deviation from such is fornication,a sin.
Mankind CAN NOT override the laws of God,no matter how hard they try.
If we look at nature in mankind,common sense tells us that homosexuality is wrong.The natural physical makeup of a human being tells us that being homosexual goes against our very nature.It tells us that it is a deviation from what is normal and right.
The thing is,God condemns homosexuality.God says that it is an abomination.What does it mean for something to be abominable?
Webster's Dictionary has the following definitions for such:
1.disgusting; vile; loathsome.
2.disagreeable; very bad.
These are the definitions af a secularly written book.
[ August 16, 2004, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: motorguy222 ]
NTK, just wait, the bible will have to say " God created man and the took one his ribs and created another man."
This is where this is headed. It's not about equal rights, it's about payback. Homosexuality will have to be the norm, heterosexuals will be called "queeer".
I don't care what two adults do to each other with consent. Just don't tell me I have to like it or there's something wrong with me. I am not interested in anyone's sex life, but I have to be made aware of it because homosexuals want to march behind their own banners in ethnic parades. The celebration of heritage cannot occur without a celebration of sexuality. It never stops, nor will it.
The church does not want to recognize gay commitment as marriage? Then there is something wrong with the church. B.S.
The old joke, "Do you know the difference between a BJ and a corned beef sandwich? No. Do you want to go to lunch then?" Has become a reality. I still know the difference.
This is where this is headed. It's not about equal rights, it's about payback. Homosexuality will have to be the norm, heterosexuals will be called "queeer".
I don't care what two adults do to each other with consent. Just don't tell me I have to like it or there's something wrong with me. I am not interested in anyone's sex life, but I have to be made aware of it because homosexuals want to march behind their own banners in ethnic parades. The celebration of heritage cannot occur without a celebration of sexuality. It never stops, nor will it.
The church does not want to recognize gay commitment as marriage? Then there is something wrong with the church. B.S.
The old joke, "Do you know the difference between a BJ and a corned beef sandwich? No. Do you want to go to lunch then?" Has become a reality. I still know the difference.
MG222,
See this is the problem using the bible to set public policy. Many religious leaders want to use the literal when it suits them and use the interpretive when it suits them. When inter-racial marriage was banned by law which part of the bible were they using? When we had slavery, which part of the bible were they using? When we had segregation which part of the bible were they using?
We don't live in a Theocracy yet, although Bush seems to want to push us in that direction. Do you? Just think how the world would be different if the Middle East had separation of Church and State as we do.
Let your religion guide your life, don't marry the same sex, don't be a homosexual. Let other people live their lives. You're one of the ones that want to keep government out of our lives.
Good read here,
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1172
See this is the problem using the bible to set public policy. Many religious leaders want to use the literal when it suits them and use the interpretive when it suits them. When inter-racial marriage was banned by law which part of the bible were they using? When we had slavery, which part of the bible were they using? When we had segregation which part of the bible were they using?
We don't live in a Theocracy yet, although Bush seems to want to push us in that direction. Do you? Just think how the world would be different if the Middle East had separation of Church and State as we do.
Let your religion guide your life, don't marry the same sex, don't be a homosexual. Let other people live their lives. You're one of the ones that want to keep government out of our lives.
Good read here,
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1172
NTK said:"We don't live in a Theocracy yet, although Bush seems to want to push us in that direction. Do you?"
The same can be said about Kerry and the Liberal agenda.Liberals want everything their way and then condemn those that dont conform to such.
Liberals cry foul when Bush makes a moral decision based on his beliefs yet if Kerry says something that he will do,which are also based on HIS beliefs,there is nothing said.
It seems as if many think that Kerry is not using his own personal beliefs in decision making, WRONG .We all use our beliefs and morals in the decisions that we make.
Those of us that call homosexuality a wrong are called hatemongers,racists,extremists,
right wingers,homophobic,discriminators and many other names.
It seems that the Liberals want to push US in a direction that would remove ALL religious views from government and ban the use of a persons religious background in the making of decisions.This is in essence what is being asked of Bush and others.
Bush is being asked to lay aside his moral and religious convictions in making decisions.This is wrong.
Would you ask Kerry to lay aside his liberal and quite secular convictions in his decision making? I dont think so.
A person CAN NOT remove or dismiss a TRUE religious belief in the making of moral decisions.
To ask one to do so would be the same as asking Kerry to disregard his Liberal and rather secular ideas regarding moral issues in his decision making.
It seems that liberals cant see this.
The same can be said about Kerry and the Liberal agenda.Liberals want everything their way and then condemn those that dont conform to such.
Liberals cry foul when Bush makes a moral decision based on his beliefs yet if Kerry says something that he will do,which are also based on HIS beliefs,there is nothing said.
It seems as if many think that Kerry is not using his own personal beliefs in decision making, WRONG .We all use our beliefs and morals in the decisions that we make.
Those of us that call homosexuality a wrong are called hatemongers,racists,extremists,
right wingers,homophobic,discriminators and many other names.
It seems that the Liberals want to push US in a direction that would remove ALL religious views from government and ban the use of a persons religious background in the making of decisions.This is in essence what is being asked of Bush and others.
Bush is being asked to lay aside his moral and religious convictions in making decisions.This is wrong.
Would you ask Kerry to lay aside his liberal and quite secular convictions in his decision making? I dont think so.
A person CAN NOT remove or dismiss a TRUE religious belief in the making of moral decisions.
To ask one to do so would be the same as asking Kerry to disregard his Liberal and rather secular ideas regarding moral issues in his decision making.
It seems that liberals cant see this.
No matter how you interpret it, the Bible prohibits murder and stealing. If we don't want a theocracy, do we need to repeal all those laws in the name of freedom from Christianity? Well no, because there is wide support for those laws outside Christianity. So with homosexuality. Even non Christians commonly find it disgusting and repulsive. The government has the right and duty to allow its practice among consenting adults and protect them from violence. The government has long regulated marriage to protect women and children. It is long proven that living with both parents is beneficial to children. To that end, the government is permitted to encourage marriage. There is no such rational for extending the benefits of marriage to homosexuals. The government has no cause to encourage homosexuality or take a stand on it being acceptable. It is true that in our society, the Christians are most outspoken against homosexuality, but that does not mean it is strictly a Christian issue.
Christians have long been leaders against social ills, slavery, discrimination, prostitution, etc. They all offend Christian teachings, just as homosexuality does. Of course Christians often disagree. Many of them supported the social programs of the 60's that damaged the family and continue to support further destruction of the family.
Christians have long been leaders against social ills, slavery, discrimination, prostitution, etc. They all offend Christian teachings, just as homosexuality does. Of course Christians often disagree. Many of them supported the social programs of the 60's that damaged the family and continue to support further destruction of the family.
Labman,you are very correct in your statement above.It seems that many want to make homosexuality a Christian only issue when in fact it is an issue that faces many.
There are many non Christians that think homosexuality is repulsive and should not be pushed on them.
What an adult person does in private is there business,however,when they bring it out and want me to support it,that is wrong.
What adults do in secret,I cant control but dont ask me to support and except a lifestyle that I dont agree with.
This is what the homosexual movement is doing.They are trying to force the acceptance of their lifestyle on those of us that disagree.
In schools,they are trying to force the teaching of their lifestyle on children,this is wrong.
Throughout history,nature tells us that homosexuality in mankind is wrong.
The physiology of men and women tell us that homosexuality is unnatural.
The above statements are not religious based statements,they are nature based.
They are statements based on the makeup of the human anatomy and the uses for such.
These issues are based on the sexual differences between a man and a woman and why these differences exist.
The human body is made to accommodate the opposite sex,this is nature.
To go against such is to go against the natural use of the human body and nature itself.
There are many non Christians that think homosexuality is repulsive and should not be pushed on them.
What an adult person does in private is there business,however,when they bring it out and want me to support it,that is wrong.
What adults do in secret,I cant control but dont ask me to support and except a lifestyle that I dont agree with.
This is what the homosexual movement is doing.They are trying to force the acceptance of their lifestyle on those of us that disagree.
In schools,they are trying to force the teaching of their lifestyle on children,this is wrong.
Throughout history,nature tells us that homosexuality in mankind is wrong.
The physiology of men and women tell us that homosexuality is unnatural.
The above statements are not religious based statements,they are nature based.
They are statements based on the makeup of the human anatomy and the uses for such.
These issues are based on the sexual differences between a man and a woman and why these differences exist.
The human body is made to accommodate the opposite sex,this is nature.
To go against such is to go against the natural use of the human body and nature itself.
First MG222 I have said earlier in posts that I don't want to expunge all religious influence from our society or from government. Neither do "liberals". That would be stupid, unacceptable and not possible. Religious leaders from all faiths, intense or not, as well as secular society should have a place at the table when discussing public policy. But to hold up one belief and one bible as the justification for a certain belief in public policy and then to have that one belief cast in Constitutional Law is not what I think this country or this democratic republic is about.
It was MG222 that resorted to biblical scripture to justify his position when it seemed he was loosing the reasoned argument approach. Secular society does not have a lock on morality any more than religious society does. The difference is that secular society is forced to draw it's reasoning and opinion from a variety of sources as there is no secular bible to escape to for justification. Lawyers, religious or not, argue their cases based on reasoned argument not the bible. The bible is a reference and I think a good one if used correctly like any other reference, but it should only be a reference, a guide. Our laws do not make reference to the bible for justification and this is important because there can be bad laws which would be a lot harder to argue against if they all quoted passages in the bible. Quoting scripture cuts off all debate, or at least that's the intent.
Now back to gay marriage. Here are three links I would like you to read on this issue. Are they the end of the discussion, no, but I think they present some interesting points.
http://www.statenews.com/op_article.phtml?pk=23493
http://www.musingson.com/ccCase.html
http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm
It was MG222 that resorted to biblical scripture to justify his position when it seemed he was loosing the reasoned argument approach. Secular society does not have a lock on morality any more than religious society does. The difference is that secular society is forced to draw it's reasoning and opinion from a variety of sources as there is no secular bible to escape to for justification. Lawyers, religious or not, argue their cases based on reasoned argument not the bible. The bible is a reference and I think a good one if used correctly like any other reference, but it should only be a reference, a guide. Our laws do not make reference to the bible for justification and this is important because there can be bad laws which would be a lot harder to argue against if they all quoted passages in the bible. Quoting scripture cuts off all debate, or at least that's the intent.
Now back to gay marriage. Here are three links I would like you to read on this issue. Are they the end of the discussion, no, but I think they present some interesting points.
http://www.statenews.com/op_article.phtml?pk=23493
http://www.musingson.com/ccCase.html
http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm
neetoknow said:"Narrow interpretation of the bible has always been used to promote bigotry."
When homosexuality is discussed in the Bible,it is very plain and straight forward.In the Old Testament,the penalty for such was death,how much plainer does it need to be.
Considering how plain that this is written,there is NO room for any other understanding of homosexuality.
In the New Testament,it is once again condemned and plainly states so.
While people may have differing interpretations of scripture and some do TWIST Scripture to make it what they want,this subject is condemned.
The Scriptures do say that homosexuality is wrong.It is written in easy to understand words and is very plain in its condemnation of such.
As I said above,when the Scriptures says that the penalty for such was death,how much plainer does it have to be? The penalty for such wasn't just so every body could get together and have a stoning.
needtoknow also said:"There are times when a child is born and it is physically and biologically difficult to determine what the sex of the child was meant to be. The docs have to do extensive studies and consults to see which way they should physically construct the child to be one sex or the other. The difficult part is what is in the child's mind as to their feelings on their own sexuality. What do you think God's message is here?"
I am not really sure what you are trying to turn a birth defect into here.This is a birth defect just like any other.I sure dont believe that God is using such in the way that you seem to be implying.
For you to even imply such sounds as if you are grasping at straws.
Let me ask you this,if a child is born with only one hand,does this mean that God is trying to say that one handed people are better? No.
Your comment,which seems to imply that a child that is born with a sexual defect was born that way so as to tell us that it is OK to be gay is nonsense.
As I stated,it is a birth defect.
Will it be harder for this kind of person when they get older? It may be but WE are dealing with a whole separate issue here.
needtoknow,you seem to be bringing in other things in trying to support your pro-gay stand and such is really hurting your case.
When homosexuality is discussed in the Bible,it is very plain and straight forward.In the Old Testament,the penalty for such was death,how much plainer does it need to be.
Considering how plain that this is written,there is NO room for any other understanding of homosexuality.
In the New Testament,it is once again condemned and plainly states so.
While people may have differing interpretations of scripture and some do TWIST Scripture to make it what they want,this subject is condemned.
The Scriptures do say that homosexuality is wrong.It is written in easy to understand words and is very plain in its condemnation of such.
As I said above,when the Scriptures says that the penalty for such was death,how much plainer does it have to be? The penalty for such wasn't just so every body could get together and have a stoning.
needtoknow also said:"There are times when a child is born and it is physically and biologically difficult to determine what the sex of the child was meant to be. The docs have to do extensive studies and consults to see which way they should physically construct the child to be one sex or the other. The difficult part is what is in the child's mind as to their feelings on their own sexuality. What do you think God's message is here?"
I am not really sure what you are trying to turn a birth defect into here.This is a birth defect just like any other.I sure dont believe that God is using such in the way that you seem to be implying.
For you to even imply such sounds as if you are grasping at straws.
Let me ask you this,if a child is born with only one hand,does this mean that God is trying to say that one handed people are better? No.
Your comment,which seems to imply that a child that is born with a sexual defect was born that way so as to tell us that it is OK to be gay is nonsense.
As I stated,it is a birth defect.
Will it be harder for this kind of person when they get older? It may be but WE are dealing with a whole separate issue here.
needtoknow,you seem to be bringing in other things in trying to support your pro-gay stand and such is really hurting your case.
MG222,
You're right, let's just kill them, the Bible says so. We could also stone a few adulterers as well.
I guess I was trying to show that life is not as clearcut and simple as many who oppose gays and gay marriage would like to think. The reference to a sexual birth defect and God's message is for those who think their interpretation of God's message is absolute, black and white, when in fact it changes with time and circumstance. The decision that the docs make may be, and has been shown to be, the wrong one. What is in the childs mind as to sexual orientation may not be what he gets physically, and that presents a large problem when he matures. As well it opens up the argument that if God can permit babies that have no clear cut sexual physical features then he may also permit babies to having varying degrees of sexual orientation.
You're right, let's just kill them, the Bible says so. We could also stone a few adulterers as well.
I guess I was trying to show that life is not as clearcut and simple as many who oppose gays and gay marriage would like to think. The reference to a sexual birth defect and God's message is for those who think their interpretation of God's message is absolute, black and white, when in fact it changes with time and circumstance. The decision that the docs make may be, and has been shown to be, the wrong one. What is in the childs mind as to sexual orientation may not be what he gets physically, and that presents a large problem when he matures. As well it opens up the argument that if God can permit babies that have no clear cut sexual physical features then he may also permit babies to having varying degrees of sexual orientation.
Define legitimate?
I personally see marriage as a covenant before God. Legislation cannot make me change my view.
Others choose to recognize other unions.
I just ask that you not redefine the term used by the church to expand it's definition. If society chooses to recognize other unions, then I have a choice to live in that society or not, but I just respectfully ask that you not redefine the term.
It is not my place to judge, but the place of God. I believe that God intended marriage to be between one man and one woman. Others hold a different view.
Just because I don't agree with others doesn't mean I cannot respect them.
FWIW,
TB
needtoknow,YOU brought religion into this thread.You posted the first response to Dan's posting and said the following:"This is supposed to be a free country, remember, and when people are trying to establish stable legal relationships why should the government, on behalf of religious organizations, write discrimination into the constitution."
You were implying that Bush's decision regarding gays was ONLY to appease those that are religious.
I did step in and defend the religious view held by many regarding homosexuality.
Once again needtoknw,YOU brought the religious aspect into this thread.
Actually,you are saying those that are against gay marriage are religiously discriminating,remember,you are the one that said the following:" why should the government, on behalf of religious organizations, write discrimination into the constitution".
Also,I have posted secular reasons that many see homosexuality as being wrong.It seems that you only see the religious reasons I have posted and then you attack them.
Many look at the physical and natural make up of mankind and are repulsed at the act of homosexuality.
I posted such in a recent post here but you seem to have overlooked such.It seems you may have done so to find a religious post by me or others to so that you may attack such.
In case you missed what I said,here it is:"Throughout history,nature tells us that homosexuality in mankind is wrong.
The physiology of men and women tell us that homosexuality is unnatural.
The above statements are not religious based statements,they are nature based.
They are statements based on the makeup of the human anatomy and the uses for such.
These issues are based on the sexual differences between a man and a woman and why these differences exist.
The human body is made to accommodate the opposite sex,this is nature.
To go against such is to go against the natural use of the human body and nature itself."
The above look at homosexuality is how many see it.They look at it as a disgusting and sickening perversion.
They look at it as being unnatural and nasty.
They base their thoughts on the physical and sexual differences of a human being,not on a religious doctrine.
Many look at the very idea of a man with a man or woman with a woman as being completely and utterly disgusting and sickening.
Once again,they are NOT basing such feelings on a religious doctrine,they base such on the natural human being and its TWO sexes,the two that are compatible and made to accommodate each other.
In closing,needtoknow you just dont seem to get the point that many have tried to make in this post and in others.
Liberals are asking Bush and others to forgo their beliefs,whether they are religious or not,and make decisions.
This is wrong.
The same Liberals then turn around and UPHOLD the ideas and beliefs that Kerry has and are voting FOR him BECAUSE of such.
They are voting FOR him because they know what his standards are and they KNOW that HE WILL use those standards in his decision making,yet,they put down Bush for doing this exact thing.
I see a lot of hypocrisy in most of the Liberals.
You were implying that Bush's decision regarding gays was ONLY to appease those that are religious.
I did step in and defend the religious view held by many regarding homosexuality.
Once again needtoknw,YOU brought the religious aspect into this thread.
Actually,you are saying those that are against gay marriage are religiously discriminating,remember,you are the one that said the following:" why should the government, on behalf of religious organizations, write discrimination into the constitution".
Also,I have posted secular reasons that many see homosexuality as being wrong.It seems that you only see the religious reasons I have posted and then you attack them.
Many look at the physical and natural make up of mankind and are repulsed at the act of homosexuality.
I posted such in a recent post here but you seem to have overlooked such.It seems you may have done so to find a religious post by me or others to so that you may attack such.
In case you missed what I said,here it is:"Throughout history,nature tells us that homosexuality in mankind is wrong.
The physiology of men and women tell us that homosexuality is unnatural.
The above statements are not religious based statements,they are nature based.
They are statements based on the makeup of the human anatomy and the uses for such.
These issues are based on the sexual differences between a man and a woman and why these differences exist.
The human body is made to accommodate the opposite sex,this is nature.
To go against such is to go against the natural use of the human body and nature itself."
The above look at homosexuality is how many see it.They look at it as a disgusting and sickening perversion.
They look at it as being unnatural and nasty.
They base their thoughts on the physical and sexual differences of a human being,not on a religious doctrine.
Many look at the very idea of a man with a man or woman with a woman as being completely and utterly disgusting and sickening.
Once again,they are NOT basing such feelings on a religious doctrine,they base such on the natural human being and its TWO sexes,the two that are compatible and made to accommodate each other.
In closing,needtoknow you just dont seem to get the point that many have tried to make in this post and in others.
Liberals are asking Bush and others to forgo their beliefs,whether they are religious or not,and make decisions.
This is wrong.
The same Liberals then turn around and UPHOLD the ideas and beliefs that Kerry has and are voting FOR him BECAUSE of such.
They are voting FOR him because they know what his standards are and they KNOW that HE WILL use those standards in his decision making,yet,they put down Bush for doing this exact thing.
I see a lot of hypocrisy in most of the Liberals.
Motorguy222,
You seem to be fixated on the physical sex act of homosexual couples and the physical differences of male and female. I will concede that there can be homosexual sex without being homosexual. But marriage does not imply a need for the sexual act. I've never seen one marriage ceremony where sex was discussed. It's all about honesty, caring, sharing, love, commitment. I think you would agree that two people can have a strong marriage without the sex act. Could gays be married and not have "the sex act"? If it were just about sex, gay couples would not need marriage or any other union. The gay marriage issue or homosexuality is not isolated to the religious community, but it is being driven by the religious community and Bush's appeal on this issue is to get votes from the religious community, particularily the black religious community, who usually overwhelmingly vote Democratic, and seem to have a stronger dislike for homosexuality than do white folks. I think they're living in denial. If this issue was only one for the secular community it would be a non issue and not paid much attention to.
You keep saying that I would not expect Kerry to abandon his views so why should I expect you to, and then you throw in the 4 letter word "liberal" for good measure just in case anyone might forget that liberals are next to the devil for being evil, a common theme on this board. I would hope that anyone, including Kerry, could be persuaded by the facts and reasoned argument on any issue. As far as the natural world is concerned it presents us with a wide variety of differences in the species whereas your interpretation of the bible seems to only allow one. That's why I gave my example on babies that are born with no clear sexual orientation, and that's why I posted the link that discussed homosexuality in the animal world. Did you read any of the links? You even seem to have said that but for mans law you would see no problem killing gays because the bible says that's what to do. You even seemed to have said that even though a child is born with their brain wired to be homosexual or of the opposite sex (did God allow that?) then that would be wrong because the bible says it's so, I guess implying that those children have to deny who they are for your religious beliefs. If you confine your arguments to non religious ones they don't make sense, nor are they born out in fact, but I don't think you looked at the natural world and then consulted your bible for proof, I think you took your interpretation of the bible and then tried to see how the natural world might fit that interpretation, then if the natural world doesn't quite fit there's always the bible to set things straight. Kinda like the early religious teachings that said the universe revolved around the Earth, it was so because the bible gave us proof and that's what religious leaders were forcing us to believe, under threat of heresy, I might add. The other aspect to this discussion is that somehow if we allow gays to marry that will force their views on the rest of us. This is simly not true, no more than allowing other religions to exist forces those religious views on the rest of us. Gays don't want a special law on gay marriage, just the same application of the law as it is applied to the rest of us. I also find it odd that you want to keep government out of everyones life until it comes to preserving your religious views, then you want the government to control everyones life through the Constitution, for which it was never intended to be used, to create a subclass of citizens separate from the rest of us. Now I can be open about when to use the term "marriage", as only in a church, but how do you define a gay marriage then that is done in a church? See, we get into grey territory that I think we should let evolve naturally in the community and not be defined in law. Great discussion by the way that has not deteriorated as some in the past.
[ August 19, 2004, 09:32 AM: Message edited by: needtoknow ]
You seem to be fixated on the physical sex act of homosexual couples and the physical differences of male and female. I will concede that there can be homosexual sex without being homosexual. But marriage does not imply a need for the sexual act. I've never seen one marriage ceremony where sex was discussed. It's all about honesty, caring, sharing, love, commitment. I think you would agree that two people can have a strong marriage without the sex act. Could gays be married and not have "the sex act"? If it were just about sex, gay couples would not need marriage or any other union. The gay marriage issue or homosexuality is not isolated to the religious community, but it is being driven by the religious community and Bush's appeal on this issue is to get votes from the religious community, particularily the black religious community, who usually overwhelmingly vote Democratic, and seem to have a stronger dislike for homosexuality than do white folks. I think they're living in denial. If this issue was only one for the secular community it would be a non issue and not paid much attention to.
You keep saying that I would not expect Kerry to abandon his views so why should I expect you to, and then you throw in the 4 letter word "liberal" for good measure just in case anyone might forget that liberals are next to the devil for being evil, a common theme on this board. I would hope that anyone, including Kerry, could be persuaded by the facts and reasoned argument on any issue. As far as the natural world is concerned it presents us with a wide variety of differences in the species whereas your interpretation of the bible seems to only allow one. That's why I gave my example on babies that are born with no clear sexual orientation, and that's why I posted the link that discussed homosexuality in the animal world. Did you read any of the links? You even seem to have said that but for mans law you would see no problem killing gays because the bible says that's what to do. You even seemed to have said that even though a child is born with their brain wired to be homosexual or of the opposite sex (did God allow that?) then that would be wrong because the bible says it's so, I guess implying that those children have to deny who they are for your religious beliefs. If you confine your arguments to non religious ones they don't make sense, nor are they born out in fact, but I don't think you looked at the natural world and then consulted your bible for proof, I think you took your interpretation of the bible and then tried to see how the natural world might fit that interpretation, then if the natural world doesn't quite fit there's always the bible to set things straight. Kinda like the early religious teachings that said the universe revolved around the Earth, it was so because the bible gave us proof and that's what religious leaders were forcing us to believe, under threat of heresy, I might add. The other aspect to this discussion is that somehow if we allow gays to marry that will force their views on the rest of us. This is simly not true, no more than allowing other religions to exist forces those religious views on the rest of us. Gays don't want a special law on gay marriage, just the same application of the law as it is applied to the rest of us. I also find it odd that you want to keep government out of everyones life until it comes to preserving your religious views, then you want the government to control everyones life through the Constitution, for which it was never intended to be used, to create a subclass of citizens separate from the rest of us. Now I can be open about when to use the term "marriage", as only in a church, but how do you define a gay marriage then that is done in a church? See, we get into grey territory that I think we should let evolve naturally in the community and not be defined in law. Great discussion by the way that has not deteriorated as some in the past.
[ August 19, 2004, 09:32 AM: Message edited by: needtoknow ]
1.NTK said:"As far as the natural world is concerned it presents us with a wide variety of differences in the species whereas your interpretation of the bible seems to only allow one. That's why I gave my example on babies that are born with no clear sexual orientation, and that's why I posted the link that discussed homosexuality in the animal world."
2.NTK said:"If you confine your arguments to non religious ones they don't make sense, nor are they born out in fact."
3.NTK said:I also find it odd that you want to keep government out of everyone's life until it comes to preserving your religious views, then you want the government to control everyone's life through the Constitution, for which it was never intended to be used, to create a subclass of citizens separate from the rest of us."
4.NTK said:"but how do you define a gay marriage then that is done in a church?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.First of all NTK,you are changing the parameters of this discussion.The animals in the wild are not being nor have they been mentioned in this discussion.WE are talking about mankind and mankind only.It seems that you are losing your argument,hence,you are brining in the wild animal kingdom into a discussion about human beings and human sexuality.This just isn't the same.I think it is rather unsettling to bring the wild animal kingdom into a discussion about HUMAN sexuality.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.Why does my non religious argument not make sense? How are they not fact?
It is a FACT that millions of NON religious people think that being gay is sickening and repulsive and therefore,they dont want it PUSHED on them.And yes,this is EXACTLY what YOU and others are wanting to do.The marriage or civil union of gays is just another step in their goal of forcing the acceptance of homosexuality on every one.
We have millions of heterosexual couples that live together,yet they haven't asked for a law to grant them civil unions.Why should gays have such?
We have heterosexual couples that have lived together most of their lives and once again,they are not asking states and people to make a 'SPECIAL' law to grant them acceptance.Why should gays have such?
Gay people have the same rights as every one else does,they should not be given special treatment.
When we look at a human being,we see TWO sexes,if a person cant see that NATURE has made a partner of the opposite sex for the HUMAN race,not animals but the HUMAN race,they have more problems than just being gay.
To argue that it is NORMAL for a human to desire the same sex when there is an opposite sex for such,is ignoring nature.It is ignoring the fact that a mate is there for that individual.
It is a fact that the female is the appropriate mate for the male,you nor anyone else can honestly say otherwise.
For a human to leave their natural mate for the same sex is deviant behavior.
It also seems that you,KNT,did not truly read the article that was placed by Dan4510.
If you had,you would see that it covered much more that the religious point of view.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.KNT,you said in your post that:"I also find it odd that you want to keep government out of everyone's life until it comes to preserving your religious views".
I find it odd that you want to promote a deviant lifestyle.Once again,if we truly look at human beings,we will see that it is unnatural to leave the opposite sex for the same sex.If anyone argues otherwise,they are not truly looking at the natural makeup of a human.
It is also un-natural for a truly normal and loving couple not to have sex as you have implied.If you think that gays aren't wanting to have sex,you have your head stuck in the sand.If you take the sex act out of the relationship as you are describing,what you have left is a good friend.
Once again,it is Un-Natural not to have sex in the kind of relationships that we are discussing.
Since we are discussing deviant lifestyles.
In some countries,it is normal for parents to fondle their children.Should that be allowed here?
Just because some may find it immoral,does that mean that it should not be allowed?
Those that do such FEEL that it is normal and see no wrong in doing so.Does that mean that WE must accept such? No.
There are many in the US that find homosexuality immoral based solely on a moral basis.If these people join the fight to stop the legalizing of civil unions/gay marriage,they have the right to do so.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.I define marriage as the union between a man and a woman,regardless of where the 'marriage' supposedly took place.
I think that you are trying to get me to say something that you can twist into something derogatory.I am not going to do such.
2.NTK said:"If you confine your arguments to non religious ones they don't make sense, nor are they born out in fact."
3.NTK said:I also find it odd that you want to keep government out of everyone's life until it comes to preserving your religious views, then you want the government to control everyone's life through the Constitution, for which it was never intended to be used, to create a subclass of citizens separate from the rest of us."
4.NTK said:"but how do you define a gay marriage then that is done in a church?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.First of all NTK,you are changing the parameters of this discussion.The animals in the wild are not being nor have they been mentioned in this discussion.WE are talking about mankind and mankind only.It seems that you are losing your argument,hence,you are brining in the wild animal kingdom into a discussion about human beings and human sexuality.This just isn't the same.I think it is rather unsettling to bring the wild animal kingdom into a discussion about HUMAN sexuality.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.Why does my non religious argument not make sense? How are they not fact?
It is a FACT that millions of NON religious people think that being gay is sickening and repulsive and therefore,they dont want it PUSHED on them.And yes,this is EXACTLY what YOU and others are wanting to do.The marriage or civil union of gays is just another step in their goal of forcing the acceptance of homosexuality on every one.
We have millions of heterosexual couples that live together,yet they haven't asked for a law to grant them civil unions.Why should gays have such?
We have heterosexual couples that have lived together most of their lives and once again,they are not asking states and people to make a 'SPECIAL' law to grant them acceptance.Why should gays have such?
Gay people have the same rights as every one else does,they should not be given special treatment.
When we look at a human being,we see TWO sexes,if a person cant see that NATURE has made a partner of the opposite sex for the HUMAN race,not animals but the HUMAN race,they have more problems than just being gay.
To argue that it is NORMAL for a human to desire the same sex when there is an opposite sex for such,is ignoring nature.It is ignoring the fact that a mate is there for that individual.
It is a fact that the female is the appropriate mate for the male,you nor anyone else can honestly say otherwise.
For a human to leave their natural mate for the same sex is deviant behavior.
It also seems that you,KNT,did not truly read the article that was placed by Dan4510.
If you had,you would see that it covered much more that the religious point of view.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.KNT,you said in your post that:"I also find it odd that you want to keep government out of everyone's life until it comes to preserving your religious views".
I find it odd that you want to promote a deviant lifestyle.Once again,if we truly look at human beings,we will see that it is unnatural to leave the opposite sex for the same sex.If anyone argues otherwise,they are not truly looking at the natural makeup of a human.
It is also un-natural for a truly normal and loving couple not to have sex as you have implied.If you think that gays aren't wanting to have sex,you have your head stuck in the sand.If you take the sex act out of the relationship as you are describing,what you have left is a good friend.
Once again,it is Un-Natural not to have sex in the kind of relationships that we are discussing.
Since we are discussing deviant lifestyles.
In some countries,it is normal for parents to fondle their children.Should that be allowed here?
Just because some may find it immoral,does that mean that it should not be allowed?
Those that do such FEEL that it is normal and see no wrong in doing so.Does that mean that WE must accept such? No.
There are many in the US that find homosexuality immoral based solely on a moral basis.If these people join the fight to stop the legalizing of civil unions/gay marriage,they have the right to do so.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.I define marriage as the union between a man and a woman,regardless of where the 'marriage' supposedly took place.
I think that you are trying to get me to say something that you can twist into something derogatory.I am not going to do such.
I would gladly continue this discussion if it involved more members. I waited a day or so before posting a reply, partly because I had other stuff to do (there is life outside BITOG) and partly to see if the discussion would be broadened. I sense the topic is far too uncomfortable for most of the other members to participate in even though a non liberal started the topic. I know most minds are closed on this issue and from a few past posts where the words "disgusting" and "repulsive" were used, I think that's where a lot of people base their opinions. There was a time when inter-racial dating and marriage where considered by many to be repulsive and disgusting. This society is evolving whether you agree or not. We never used to see blacks or other races in entertainment or sports, never used to see a TV couple in the same bed, never used to see a black and white couple kiss, in public or on TV, never used to discuss homosexuality let alone see entertainment shows where they are lead characters. So this issue is evolving because we are finding that our democracy is not threatened by acceptance of diversity. Maybe homosexuality is the one last hate we can finally cling to as all the rest seem not to be in vogue any more.
It is discusting and it is a flaw of nature. So what do we do with these people? Bann them from society? motorguy, believe me it discusts me when I see homosexual acts on TV or where ever, but I personally believe it's not in their control to determine their sexuality. The Bible is your code for morality and most of our society, but it doesn't mean every aspect of it is right or interpreted right. Gays have been here and they ain't going away anytime soon unless they find the cause of it and fix it. I've worked with a few gay people and they were very nice. The flamers that push their gayness around too much I can't stand. Those are the ones I don't like. Keep it to yourself. That Ellen De whatever her name was gets on my nerves. OK, we know your gay now shut the **** up.
[ August 21, 2004, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: buster ]
[ August 21, 2004, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: buster ]
Buster said:"Gays have been here and they ain't going away anytime soon unless they find the cause of it and fix it."
Buster,if you will do a search,homosexuality was treated as a mental illness until the 1970's.
Maybe it needs to be treated as such again.
I too have worked with gay people.
I had a boss at one time that was by all intents,gay.As far as I know,she never admitted it to any at my job,however,she went away one weekend with her 'roommate' and came back wearing a wedding band.
While I do believe that the Bible condemns homosexuality,and it does so quite plainly.There are those that believe it is wrong based on the un-natural use of the human body.
There is not one person that can look at the TWO sexes of a human and then say that it is truly NORMAL for a man to desire a man or a woman,a woman.
Many people that are NOT religious feel this way because of the natural appearances of humans and their sexual makeup,when they take such into consideration,many think homosexuality is wrong.
Buster,I nor anyone else is saying that we should ban gays from society.This is just an argument used by those that promote homosexuality when they are losing the fight.
What we ARE saying is,Dont push an UN-NATURAL and DEVIANT lifestyle on everyone else by demanding marriage/civil unions to be recognized by society.
]Dont force the rest of us to accept an unnatural lifestyle.
If we do allow such,what is to keep those that are polygamists from demanding that they be given permission to have multiple wives? After all,why should they not be granted to do such?
Why would it be wrong to do such?
If we allow gay marriage,What is to keep bi-sexual from having two marriages.They will have a marriage for each sex they are involved with.If a gay can have a same sex partner,then why cant a bi-sexual have 2 partners? Really,why shouldn't they?
These are legitimate questions that we will most likely be faced with if gay marriage/civil unions are allowed.
Some may say that this will never happen,however,the same ones more than likely said that we would never face the issue of gay marriage.
What about the marriage of minors to pedophiles? Why should this be wrong? What precedent would we use to say such is wrong when we have accepted everything else?
Where would things stop?
Buster,if you will do a search,homosexuality was treated as a mental illness until the 1970's.
Maybe it needs to be treated as such again.
I too have worked with gay people.
I had a boss at one time that was by all intents,gay.As far as I know,she never admitted it to any at my job,however,she went away one weekend with her 'roommate' and came back wearing a wedding band.
While I do believe that the Bible condemns homosexuality,and it does so quite plainly.There are those that believe it is wrong based on the un-natural use of the human body.
There is not one person that can look at the TWO sexes of a human and then say that it is truly NORMAL for a man to desire a man or a woman,a woman.
Many people that are NOT religious feel this way because of the natural appearances of humans and their sexual makeup,when they take such into consideration,many think homosexuality is wrong.
Buster,I nor anyone else is saying that we should ban gays from society.This is just an argument used by those that promote homosexuality when they are losing the fight.
What we ARE saying is,Dont push an UN-NATURAL and DEVIANT lifestyle on everyone else by demanding marriage/civil unions to be recognized by society.
]Dont force the rest of us to accept an unnatural lifestyle.
If we do allow such,what is to keep those that are polygamists from demanding that they be given permission to have multiple wives? After all,why should they not be granted to do such?
Why would it be wrong to do such?
If we allow gay marriage,What is to keep bi-sexual from having two marriages.They will have a marriage for each sex they are involved with.If a gay can have a same sex partner,then why cant a bi-sexual have 2 partners? Really,why shouldn't they?
These are legitimate questions that we will most likely be faced with if gay marriage/civil unions are allowed.
Some may say that this will never happen,however,the same ones more than likely said that we would never face the issue of gay marriage.
What about the marriage of minors to pedophiles? Why should this be wrong? What precedent would we use to say such is wrong when we have accepted everything else?
Where would things stop?
I agree with you. I don't want them pushing their ways on the rest of us. I don't have a problem with gays that don't flaunt it. These people unfortunately have a genetic flaw or chemical imbalance that really makes them different. There is some evidence that it can be established at very early ages of life, around 1-3yrs old. I don't come down to hard on these people because it's not their choice IMO. You can't teach someone who is gay to be straight. I love women, and the thought of anything gay discusts me, but you have to realize that they can't control it. Like you said, where does it end?
The use of paragraphs in constructing long posts would be helpful.
NTK,I have a few comments.
First,I dont think it is that people on the board are to uncomfortable to participate,it is that they have enough common sense to look at the natural and or the religious aspect of homosexuality and realize that it is against nature and for most that are religious,it is against the Holy Scriptures.
The act of homosexuality IS disgusting.It is perversion,the act of leaving the natural mate of the human being to BE with the SAME sex is,perverse.This is UN NATURAL because the human has a mate,we have an OPPOSITE sex.We have a mate that is made for a relationship.
The act of homosexuality is unnatural.A male or female body is NOT made to except sex from the same sex,our bodies are NOT made for such.
It is UN-Natural for such,hence it IS a perversion because homosexuality leaves the natural FOR the UN-NATURAL.
Secondly,heterosexual inter-racial relationships have NOTHING to do with being perverted as homosexuality does.
Black entertainment and sports people have NOTHING to do with perversion or UNNATURAL sex acts.
NTK,you are grasping at straws here and bringing in other things in trying to support your upholding of a deviant lifestyle.It isn't working.
Also,it is not that we believe that homosexuality will HURT or democracy,we just believe that it is wrong.We have nature to support this and we have the Scriptures to support this.
Some people believe that being gay is wrong based solely on the natural aspect of such,while others use both the natural and the religious issues as a basis for their belief.
The belief that being gay is wrong IS NOT hate.
Why do you believe that stealing is wrong?
Why do you believe that murder is wrong?
Why do you believe that it is wrong to commit adultery(if you do)?
If you believe that these things are wrong,do you HATE those that do such?
Probably not.
Does this mean that those that think these things are wrong hate these people? No,I dont think so.
Then why is it HATE for those that say that homosexuality is wrong?
Hate has NOTHING to do with it.
The use of HATE to describe those that are against homosexuality is a last straw used by YOU and others in trying to justify the PERVERSION of the gay lifestyle.
You and others use the word HATE as a banner to try and get others to join your fight.
Many of the other 'devices' that have been used by gays to promote the acceptance of their lifestyle has failed,thus,the HATE CARD is being played as a last resort.
Homosexuality IS DISGUSTING and SICKENING.IT IS because WE have a NATURAL mate of the opposite sex,however,some want to leave that natural mate for a PERVERTED relationship with the same sex.
If these aren't UNNATURAL and PERVERTED acts for a human,then what would be?
First,I dont think it is that people on the board are to uncomfortable to participate,it is that they have enough common sense to look at the natural and or the religious aspect of homosexuality and realize that it is against nature and for most that are religious,it is against the Holy Scriptures.
The act of homosexuality IS disgusting.It is perversion,the act of leaving the natural mate of the human being to BE with the SAME sex is,perverse.This is UN NATURAL because the human has a mate,we have an OPPOSITE sex.We have a mate that is made for a relationship.
The act of homosexuality is unnatural.A male or female body is NOT made to except sex from the same sex,our bodies are NOT made for such.
It is UN-Natural for such,hence it IS a perversion because homosexuality leaves the natural FOR the UN-NATURAL.
Secondly,heterosexual inter-racial relationships have NOTHING to do with being perverted as homosexuality does.
Black entertainment and sports people have NOTHING to do with perversion or UNNATURAL sex acts.
NTK,you are grasping at straws here and bringing in other things in trying to support your upholding of a deviant lifestyle.It isn't working.
Also,it is not that we believe that homosexuality will HURT or democracy,we just believe that it is wrong.We have nature to support this and we have the Scriptures to support this.
Some people believe that being gay is wrong based solely on the natural aspect of such,while others use both the natural and the religious issues as a basis for their belief.
The belief that being gay is wrong IS NOT hate.
Why do you believe that stealing is wrong?
Why do you believe that murder is wrong?
Why do you believe that it is wrong to commit adultery(if you do)?
If you believe that these things are wrong,do you HATE those that do such?
Probably not.
Does this mean that those that think these things are wrong hate these people? No,I dont think so.
Then why is it HATE for those that say that homosexuality is wrong?
Hate has NOTHING to do with it.
The use of HATE to describe those that are against homosexuality is a last straw used by YOU and others in trying to justify the PERVERSION of the gay lifestyle.
You and others use the word HATE as a banner to try and get others to join your fight.
Many of the other 'devices' that have been used by gays to promote the acceptance of their lifestyle has failed,thus,the HATE CARD is being played as a last resort.
Homosexuality IS DISGUSTING and SICKENING.IT IS because WE have a NATURAL mate of the opposite sex,however,some want to leave that natural mate for a PERVERTED relationship with the same sex.
If these aren't UNNATURAL and PERVERTED acts for a human,then what would be?
- Status
Similar threads
