PDA

View Full Version : The left...why hide their message?



BadCat
04-23-2012, 04:24 PM
Gay marriage is up for a vote in our state this May. An amendment to the state constitution that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Simple enough.

Signs are popping up in support and opposition of the amendment. Most of the support signs say "Marriage - One Man One Woman - Vote Yes on Amendment One"

The signs against say "Vote against Amendment One".

Why can't the left just say what it means?

Why not signs that say "Bone Smugglers should be able to marry too" or "Let Lezzies Live in Matrimony"?

Generation Why?
04-23-2012, 05:01 PM
I already turned in my ballot for May 8. I don't look into all the political games of the issue. I just ask myself a couple simple questions:

Does it affect me if two men and women marry? No
Is it equal treatment if two men and women who love each other are not allowed to get married? No


I just look at it in black and white. I understand I will be in the minority on here, if not, the only one, and fully expect to catch hell. With that said, I will reiterate: It does not make my day any better or worse if two men are allowed to marry each other. I just don't understand the hysteria around it. I accept and respect anyone's religious beliefs and those inherent reasons for it, I just ask for someone to create an argument based on legal reasons, not religious beliefs. To each their own. I just want everyone to have the same opportunities as I do.

Retread
04-23-2012, 05:06 PM
................. I just want everyone to have the same opportunities as I do.

They already do.

Rockntractor
04-23-2012, 05:07 PM
I already turned in my ballot for May 8. I don't look into all the political games of the issue. I just ask myself a couple simple questions:

Does it affect me if two men and women marry? No
Is it equal treatment if two men and women who love each other are not allowed to get married? No


I just look at it in black and white. I understand I will be in the minority on here, if not, the only one, and fully expect to catch hell. With that said, I will reiterate: It does not make my day any better or worse if two men are allowed to marry each other. I just don't understand the hysteria around it. I accept and respect anyone's religious beliefs and those inherent reasons for it, I just ask for someone to create an argument based on legal reasons, not religious beliefs. To each their own. I just want everyone to have the same opportunities as I do.
The question asked in the OP was why can't they be honest about it on their campaign signs.

Apache
04-23-2012, 05:12 PM
Why can't the left just say what it means?



Because they are mentally defective and don't know what anything means...

Apache
04-23-2012, 05:19 PM
I already turned in my ballot for May 8. I don't look into all the political games of the issue. I just ask myself a couple simple questions:

Does it affect me if two men and women marry? No
Is it equal treatment if two men and women who love each other are not allowed to get married? No


I just look at it in black and white. I understand I will be in the minority on here, if not, the only one, and fully expect to catch hell. With that said, I will reiterate: It does not make my day any better or worse if two men are allowed to marry each other. I just don't understand the hysteria around it. I accept and respect anyone's religious beliefs and those inherent reasons for it, I just ask for someone to create an argument based on legal reasons, not religious beliefs. To each their own. I just want everyone to have the same opportunities as I do.

Because it's legal, doesn't make it moral or right. Just because it doesn't affect you personally, doesn't mean it doesn't affect society as a whole. Part of the problem America has now, is the "ME" mentality...

Zeus
04-23-2012, 05:21 PM
I already turned in my ballot for May 8. I don't look into all the political games of the issue. I just ask myself a couple simple questions:

Does it affect me if two men and women marry? No
Is it equal treatment if two men and women who love each other are not allowed to get married? No


I just look at it in black and white. I understand I will be in the minority on here, if not, the only one, and fully expect to catch hell. With that said, I will reiterate: It does not make my day any better or worse if two men are allowed to marry each other. I just don't understand the hysteria around it. I accept and respect anyone's religious beliefs and those inherent reasons for it, I just ask for someone to create an argument based on legal reasons, not religious beliefs. To each their own. I just want everyone to have the same opportunities as I do.

Whether you know it or not,am willing to admit it or not, the disintegration of the nuclear family has already had an affect on you and everyone in society. I fail to grasp the Ideology that what happens beyond the end of ones nose has no effect on them. The Moral underpinnings of a civil society are rotting away all in the name of if it feels good do it.

Generation Why?
04-23-2012, 05:29 PM
Because it's legal, doesn't make it moral or right. Just because it doesn't affect you personally, doesn't mean it doesn't affect society as a whole. Part of the problem America has now, is the "ME" mentality...

Because it is in scripture doesn't make it moral or right, either. That is my point. And to comment about the Left's signs and what not: I don't know, I stopped trying to figure them out a long time ago.

Generation Why?
04-23-2012, 05:33 PM
Whether you know it or not,am willing to admit it or not, the disintegration of the nuclear family has already had an affect on you and everyone in society. I fail to grasp the Ideology that what happens beyond the end of ones nose has no effect on them. The Moral underpinnings of a civil society are rotting away all in the name of if it feels good do it.

Zeus, respectfully of course, if it has affected me, I haven't noticed. I have a good life with good friends. They are all doing just fine. In fact, for the first time in a long time there are no issues in my life or those of my friends. And gay marriage would not harm the moral underpinnings as you put it. It would allow people who love each other to commit to each other just as I did to my wife. That is not immoral.

Generation Why?
04-23-2012, 05:34 PM
The signs against say "Vote against Amendment One".



Isn't that pretty much the whole concept? We all know what Amendmant One will/would do. They don't really have to romanticize it.

Apache
04-23-2012, 06:25 PM
Because it is in scripture doesn't make it moral or right, either. ...

The "scripture", as you put it, IS both moral and right...Try reading the Bible.

Generation Why?
04-23-2012, 06:37 PM
The "scripture", as you put it, IS both moral and right...Try reading the Bible.

Oh I have read the bible. You must have read something else.

Apache
04-23-2012, 07:13 PM
Oh I have read the bible. You must have read something else.

Ok, show me New Testament, something immoral or wrong. It must be IN CONTEXT! Your ball...:cool:

Lager
04-23-2012, 07:31 PM
I already turned in my ballot for May 8. I don't look into all the political games of the issue. I just ask myself a couple simple questions:

Does it affect me if two men and women marry? No
Is it equal treatment if two men and women who love each other are not allowed to get married? No


I just look at it in black and white. I understand I will be in the minority on here, if not, the only one, and fully expect to catch hell. With that said, I will reiterate: It does not make my day any better or worse if two men are allowed to marry each other. I just don't understand the hysteria around it. I accept and respect anyone's religious beliefs and those inherent reasons for it, I just ask for someone to create an argument based on legal reasons, not religious beliefs. To each their own. I just want everyone to have the same opportunities as I do.

With all due respect, it's doesn't make a solid argument simply to argue for or against something on the basis that it doesn't affect you personally. It probably wouldn't affect you if a man wanted to marry two or more women, his sister, or even if he wanted to marry an underage girl or boy. Now I'm not necessarily arguing on either side of the issue. And not all misgivings about same sex marriage arise strictly out of a religious sense. I understand the libertarian viewpoint and it has its upside, but I'm not sure if that's your foundation, or if it's because you're coming from a liberal bias.

Lanie
04-23-2012, 07:31 PM
Gay marriage is up for a vote in our state this May. An amendment to the state constitution that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Simple enough.

Signs are popping up in support and opposition of the amendment. Most of the support signs say "Marriage - One Man One Woman - Vote Yes on Amendment One"

The signs against say "Vote against Amendment One".

Why can't the left just say what it means?

Why not signs that say "Bone Smugglers should be able to marry too" or "Let Lezzies Live in Matrimony"?


Hey everybody, I'm the left. Well, sort of. Anyway, I'm for allowing gay marriage.

Is there anybody here who is in the dark about that? Anybody confused about that? No? Okay, good.

Now, let's talk about the so called "marriage" amendment.

"Vote for marriage" is deceiving.

I'm all for marriage. I'm actually traditional on this subject in sense that I think that marriage should be between two unrelated people (cousin marriages allowed in some states. Gross), and I actually think the two people should stay together until death do they part. If you have the attitude that it's cool to get married now and then get a divorce later, then you need to stop right where you are.

I'm so much for marriage, that I think gay people should be allowed to join the club. Now, what's the worst thing that happens if gays are allowed to marry? Can they force churches to accept their union? Absolutely not. How about force churches to perform the ceremony? Absolutely not. The Roman Catholic Church not only doesn't accept gay marriage, but they also do not accept divorce and remarriage. Unless a divorced person gets an annullment through the church, the church will refuse to perform a new marriage ceremony and will even not allow a member to take communion if they're remarried. That's because their marriage isn't accepted in the eyes of the church. The law accepts it, but not the church.

So this idea that religious people would somehow be forced into accepting gay marriage as legit just because the law does is an invalid argument. You can still tell them their marriage isn't valid. You can still tell them that their soul is in danger. You can still claim their somehow a threat to your family. Your right to act like an idiot on this subject will stay in place. You do not have to accept gays or gay marriage just because it's legal.

Now, let's discuss the so called "marriage" amendment in NC even further. It says that marriage between a man and a woman will be the only domestic union. This means there is no room for common law marriages for heterosexuals in the future. It also puts a damper on domestic violence laws. Right now, our laws protect unmarried couples living together, people who live together in general, people who date, people who used to date, people who share a child, etc. Now, so called marriage proponents say we're being deceitful with that. However, experts from the UNC School of Law says it's true.

http://www.law.unc.edu/documents/faculty/marriageamendment/dlureportnov8.pdf
This would:

invalidate domestic violence protections for all unmarried partners;
 undercut existing child custody and visitation law that is designed to protect the best
interests of children;
 prevent the state from giving committed couples protections that help them order their
relationships, including the right to
o determine the disposition of their deceased partner’s remains;
o visit their partner in the hospital in the event of a medical emergency;
o to make emergency medical decisions for their partner if their partner is
incapacitated; and
o to make financial decisions for their partner if their partner is incapacitated.
Furthermore, if courts interpreted it in a far-reaching manner, the Amendment could even:
 invalidate trusts, wills, and end-of-life directives by one partner in favor of the other.




Now that I've quoted that, I'd like to discuss the rest of this.

First, if you still think this can't happen, know it did already happen in Ohio.

http://newyorklawschool.typepad.com/leonardlink/2007/07/ohio-supreme-co.html

This happened in 2007. Know when Ohio passed this so called "marriage" amendment? 2004.

It took three years for Ohio to get it together in regards to this amendment and DV laws, and how they are applied.

http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/03/04/1902872/marriage-amendment-debate-focuses.html


North Carolina can perhaps learn from Ohio, which amended its constitution to include a same-sex marriage ban in 2004. Almost immediately, defense attorneys across the state tried to have criminal domestic-violence charges against their clients thrown out on the grounds that the new law meant opposite-sex unmarried couples were no longer protected.

The ensuing confusion left conflicting decisions by judges throughout Ohio for two and a half years, until the state Supreme Court settled it by ruling the domestic violence laws and the constitutional amendment were not in conflict.

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/03/04/1902872/marriage-amendment-debate-focuses.html#storylink=cpy

Now, let's discuss the rest of this. If a couple allowed visitation or custody rights to a domestic partner, this can be invalidated now. Some counties (mostly the liberal ones I'll admit) were allowed to allow healthcare benefits to domestic partners (gay and straight). This law passes, and those counties will no longer have that option.

You can make a will saying who gets what, but it can take months to apply a will.

Power of Attorney? Better keep that piece of paper with you at all times. Even then, somebody could try to challenge the validity of it.

So, I usually make my point and go. Not this time. I'm asking, more like begging people, including people here who might live in NC to vote against this amendment. Don't do it for gays. Do it for your own family. Do it for the people you know who could be affected by this. Do it for them. Gay marriage will still be illegal, and the chances of it ever being made legal here in NC is very very slim. The federal government would have to get involved. No way would gay marriage come here to NC on a state level.

So, I'm actually being bold enough to ask people here to vote against it. And yes, I know which board I'm on.

Lanie
04-23-2012, 07:38 PM
I already turned in my ballot for May 8. I don't look into all the political games of the issue. I just ask myself a couple simple questions:

Does it affect me if two men and women marry? No
Is it equal treatment if two men and women who love each other are not allowed to get married? No


I just look at it in black and white. I understand I will be in the minority on here, if not, the only one, and fully expect to catch hell. With that said, I will reiterate: It does not make my day any better or worse if two men are allowed to marry each other. I just don't understand the hysteria around it. I accept and respect anyone's religious beliefs and those inherent reasons for it, I just ask for someone to create an argument based on legal reasons, not religious beliefs. To each their own. I just want everyone to have the same opportunities as I do.

Out of curiosity, did your ballot have the comment about "This will not stop being from making private contracts?" The reason I ask is because I've looked at the sample ballot and didn't find this extra comment on there.

Apache
04-23-2012, 07:40 PM
So, I'm actually being bold enough to ask people here to vote against it. And yes, I know which board I'm on.

So you're basically telling God to "shove it"?

Lanie
04-23-2012, 07:42 PM
Because it's legal, doesn't make it moral or right. Just because it doesn't affect you personally, doesn't mean it doesn't affect society as a whole. Part of the problem America has now, is the "ME" mentality...

If Amendment One does not get passed, gay marriage will still be illegal. After pushing for an amendment against gay marriage being allowed, I highly doubt the state will try to pass any laws or amendments allowing it. So, gay marriage is not a "threat" here unless the federal government steps in.

If Amendment One does pass, it's going to hurt a lot more people than just homosexuals. It will hurt heterosexuals too. Are people willing to live with those consequences?

Also want to stress that you don't have to accept homosexuality just because gay marriage is legal. Imagine if divorce and remarriage became illegal because the Catholic Church didn't approve of it. You can still have your exclusive meetings, clubs, contracts, or whatever.

Lanie
04-23-2012, 07:49 PM
The "scripture", as you put it, IS both moral and right...Try reading the Bible.

Good idea. Let's see what Jesus has to say about marriage.

http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/divorce.html


In Luke 16:18 Jesus says:
Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.


2) Mark also records Jesus thoughts on the issue, Mark 10:2-12:
2 And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" 3 He answered them, "What did Moses command you?" 4 They said, "Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to put her away." 5 But Jesus said to them, "For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6 But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' 7 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder." 10 And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. 11 And he said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."

Is anybody here divorced or remarried? If so, then where do you (generic you) get off judging gay people?

Apache
04-23-2012, 07:53 PM
Also want to stress that you don't have to accept homosexuality just because gay marriage is legal. Imagine if divorce and remarriage became illegal because the Catholic Church didn't approve of it. You can still have your exclusive meetings, clubs, contracts, or whatever.

I will never accept homosexuality.An amendment, a law, a whatever doesn't make homosexuality normal or acceptable. It is deviant AND a sin... period!

Zeus
04-23-2012, 07:59 PM
Hey everybody, I'm the left. Well, sort of. Anyway, I'm for allowing gay marriage.

Is there anybody here who is in the dark about that? Anybody confused about that? No? Okay, good.

Now, let's talk about the so called "marriage" amendment.

"Vote for marriage" is deceiving.

I'm all for marriage. I'm actually traditional on this subject in sense that I think that marriage should be between two unrelated people (cousin marriages allowed in some states. Gross), and I actually think the two people should stay together until death do they part. If you have the attitude that it's cool to get married now and then get a divorce later, then you need to stop right where you are.

I'm so much for marriage, that I think gay people should be allowed to join the club. Now, what's the worst thing that happens if gays are allowed to marry? Can they force churches to accept their union? Absolutely not. How about force churches to perform the ceremony? Absolutely not. The Roman Catholic Church not only doesn't accept gay marriage, but they also do not accept divorce and remarriage. Unless a divorced person gets an annullment through the church, the church will refuse to perform a new marriage ceremony and will even not allow a member to take communion if they're remarried. That's because their marriage isn't accepted in the eyes of the church. The law accepts it, but not the church.

So this idea that religious people would somehow be forced into accepting gay marriage as legit just because the law does is an invalid argument. You can still tell them their marriage isn't valid. You can still tell them that their soul is in danger. You can still claim their somehow a threat to your family. Your right to act like an idiot on this subject will stay in place. You do not have to accept gays or gay marriage just because it's legal.

Now, let's discuss the so called "marriage" amendment in NC even further. It says that marriage between a man and a woman will be the only domestic union. This means there is no room for common law marriages for heterosexuals in the future. It also puts a damper on domestic violence laws. Right now, our laws protect unmarried couples living together, people who live together in general, people who date, people who used to date, people who share a child, etc. Now, so called marriage proponents say we're being deceitful with that. However, experts from the UNC School of Law says it's true.

http://www.law.unc.edu/documents/faculty/marriageamendment/dlureportnov8.pdf
This would:


Now that I've quoted that, I'd like to discuss the rest of this.

First, if you still think this can't happen, know it did already happen in Ohio.

http://newyorklawschool.typepad.com/leonardlink/2007/07/ohio-supreme-co.html

This happened in 2007. Know when Ohio passed this so called "marriage" amendment? 2004.

It took three years for Ohio to get it together in regards to this amendment and DV laws, and how they are applied.

http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/03/04/1902872/marriage-amendment-debate-focuses.html



Now, let's discuss the rest of this. If a couple allowed visitation or custody rights to a domestic partner, this can be invalidated now. Some counties (mostly the liberal ones I'll admit) were allowed to allow healthcare benefits to domestic partners (gay and straight). This law passes, and those counties will no longer have that option.

You can make a will saying who gets what, but it can take months to apply a will.

Power of Attorney? Better keep that piece of paper with you at all times. Even then, somebody could try to challenge the validity of it.

So, I usually make my point and go. Not this time. I'm asking, more like begging people, including people here who might live in NC to vote against this amendment. Don't do it for gays. Do it for your own family. Do it for the people you know who could be affected by this. Do it for them. Gay marriage will still be illegal, and the chances of it ever being made legal here in NC is very very slim. The federal government would have to get involved. No way would gay marriage come here to NC on a state level.

So, I'm actually being bold enough to ask people here to vote against it. And yes, I know which board I'm on.

Lanie you truly are one gullible person.

Protection from and/or prosecution of violence against another individual has nothing to do with marital status. Wills & POA have been litigated since their inception,again has nothing to do with marital status. Those so called legal opinions from UNC school of law are just baffling the masses with BS. Defense attorney's can make any argument they want,doesn't mean it will float in a court of law.

The way things are going I wouldn't be too surprised if Someday soon churches are forced to do a lot of things they are against. For example provide contraceptives and/or abortions ( sound familiar ?).

Apache
04-23-2012, 08:06 PM
Good idea. Let's see what Jesus has to say about marriage.

http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/divorce.html





Is anybody here divorced or remarried? If so, then where do you (generic you) get off judging gay people?

Yes, I am divorced. Let's look at what the Bible says about my situation, shall we?
Matthew 5:32
Divorce
32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
You see, I had someone who couldn't keep her legs closed, let alone keep her vows. In my case, the act of divorce, is allowed. Will I get married again? Not to anybody from this state, they're not exactly trustworthy around these parts...:cold:

Articulate_Ape
04-23-2012, 08:13 PM
http://i531.photobucket.com/albums/dd359/JamesSavant/TitanicUSA.jpg

Retread
04-23-2012, 09:13 PM
I will never accept homosexuality.An amendment, a law, a whatever doesn't make homosexuality normal or acceptable. It is deviant AND a sin... period!

And non-reproducing mutant.

Apache
04-23-2012, 11:15 PM
*bump*

Gen Why, Lanie! Where are you guys?




Yoo-Hoo...

Odysseus
04-24-2012, 12:17 AM
Gay marriage is up for a vote in our state this May. An amendment to the state constitution that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Simple enough.

Signs are popping up in support and opposition of the amendment. Most of the support signs say "Marriage - One Man One Woman - Vote Yes on Amendment One"

The signs against say "Vote against Amendment One".

Why can't the left just say what it means?

Why not signs that say "Bone Smugglers should be able to marry too" or "Let Lezzies Live in Matrimony"?

If the left were honest about their intentions, they would lose. Since they don't want to lose, and cannot win in an honest debate of the issues, they lie. Everything else is just window dressing.

enslaved1
04-24-2012, 12:12 PM
Gay marriage is up for a vote in our state this May. An amendment to the state constitution that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Simple enough.

Signs are popping up in support and opposition of the amendment. Most of the support signs say "Marriage - One Man One Woman - Vote Yes on Amendment One"

The signs against say "Vote against Amendment One".

Why can't the left just say what it means?

Why not signs that say "Bone Smugglers should be able to marry too" or "Let Lezzies Live in Matrimony"?

This thread is why the left won't say what they mean, because to do so opens up massive social, cultural, political, and religious debates that can't be resolved with a ballot initiative or fit on a sign. Gay marriage has serious ripples, such as Christians who run businesses having to legally recognize unions that are an affront to their beliefs in their hiring practices, benefits, and other areas. Legalization could theoretically force preachers to perform marriage ceremonies or face crippling discrimination lawsuits. The increasing in various negative social activities has gone right alongside the decline in traditional marriage, making a possible connection easy to hypothesize.

The same logic can be applied to most liberal talking points. The OWS/99% is a huge oversimplification of a myriad of stuff that serious discussion of is just too difficult and multifaceted to guarantee signing up to the lib spin, so is drug legalization, abortion, ect. Rather than run the risk of real thought being applied, since that might cause a person to not fall hook line and sinker for the lib line, they obfuscate, gloss over, create slogans, and then beat them into everyone's head. Much easier than researching, coming up with evidence to support their argument, keeping track of that evidence, and the like.

Wei Wu Wei
04-24-2012, 02:04 PM
There's two interesting things I noticed in this thread.


1. There is an argument that our society being too much of a "me" society is dangerous. The argument is that no one is an island, and that policies affect society as a whole. There is an implicit idea that we, as members of this society, need to think beyond our own selves and consider what is good for the society we live in, if we want to continue to benefit from living in a prosperous society.

You claim that allowing gay marriage will undermine moral principles and social constructs which benefit our society, and with these social institutions changing, the end result will be detrimental to all of us.

Now I don't agree with that conclusion, but I hope you can agree that I've followed your logic correctly.

What I have an issue with, is a stark inconsistency with arguments I've seen countless times over on other issues, such as health care or education. Over and over I hear people say "why should I pay for public education if I don't have kids or if my kids don't go to public school?". Doesn't the same line of logic apply here: education is a public good that benefits the society as a whole that your family lives in. Rather than simply thinking of yourself, you should think beyond your own nose and support institutions that benefit all of us, if you want to your children to live in a functional society.

As for health care, the same thing applies: "why should I have to pay for someone else's health care? I have my own health care from my job". Again, as a society, health institutions benefit all of us since we can only function in relation to one another.

I'm curious how the people who advocate this line of logic reconcile this apparent inconsistency.



2. The justification for the argument that gay marriage will harm society seems to be as follows:
Kids need a good family life when they are young.
If they do not have a good family life, they are more likely to miss out on character-building foundations that will allow them to be responsible, functional adults.
The model for a good family life is the Nuclear Family.
The further one deviates from this ideal Nuclear Family, the worse the childhood conditions will be for raising a proper adult.
Note: While not everyone from a good nuclear family will grow up to be a proper adult, and while not everyone from a broken home or alternative family structure will grow up to be a criminal deviant, it is safe to say that the odds are more likely in that respect.

Have I followed this line of logic correctly?

If so, I've spotted another inconsistency. On the issue of welfare reform, many conservatives state that it is important for single mothers to work if they want to receive government assistance. This brings up a tricky situation: if a single mother is poor, forcing her to work in order to get assistance means her child or children will have less parental support in their formative years. In this case, some right-wingers support separating a child from their mother to make sure the mother isn't getting a "free-ride". They think teaching the mother a lesson is more important than the child having a parent at home with them. Don't conservatives who see the extreme important value of parental structure see how these policies may result in poorly-reared children who grow up to be maladjusted adults?

Rockntractor
04-24-2012, 02:14 PM
There's two interesting things I noticed in this thread.


1. There is an argument that our society being too much of a "me" society is dangerous. The argument is that no one is an island, and that policies affect society as a whole. There is an implicit idea that we, as members of this society, need to think beyond our own selves and consider what is good for the society we live in, if we want to continue to benefit from living in a prosperous society.

You claim that allowing gay marriage will undermine moral principles and social constructs which benefit our society, and with these social institutions changing, the end result will be detrimental to all of us.

Now I don't agree with that conclusion, but I hope you can agree that I've followed your logic correctly.

What I have an issue with, is a stark inconsistency with arguments I've seen countless times over on other issues, such as health care or education. Over and over I hear people say "why should I pay for public education if I don't have kids or if my kids don't go to public school?". Doesn't the same line of logic apply here: education is a public good that benefits the society as a whole that your family lives in. Rather than simply thinking of yourself, you should think beyond your own nose and support institutions that benefit all of us, if you want to your children to live in a functional society.

As for health care, the same thing applies: "why should I have to pay for someone else's health care? I have my own health care from my job". Again, as a society, health institutions benefit all of us since we can only function in relation to one another.

I'm curious how the people who advocate this line of logic reconcile this apparent inconsistency.



2. The justification for the argument that gay marriage will harm society seems to be as follows:
Kids need a good family life when they are young.
If they do not have a good family life, they are more likely to miss out on character-building foundations that will allow them to be responsible, functional adults.
The model for a good family life is the Nuclear Family.
The further one deviates from this ideal Nuclear Family, the worse the childhood conditions will be for raising a proper adult.
Note: While not everyone from a good nuclear family will grow up to be a proper adult, and while not everyone from a broken home or alternative family structure will grow up to be a criminal deviant, it is safe to say that the odds are more likely in that respect.

Have I followed this line of logic correctly?

If so, I've spotted another inconsistency. On the issue of welfare reform, many conservatives state that it is important for single mothers to work if they want to receive government assistance. This brings up a tricky situation: if a single mother is poor, forcing her to work in order to get assistance means her child or children will have less parental support in their formative years. In this case, some right-wingers support separating a child from their mother to make sure the mother isn't getting a "free-ride". They think teaching the mother a lesson is more important than the child having a parent at home with them. Don't conservatives who see the extreme important value of parental structure see how these policies may result in poorly-reared children who grow up to be maladjusted adults?
There's two interesting things I noticed in this post.
1. you're an idiot.
2. You didn't answer the question the OP asked.

Articulate_Ape
04-24-2012, 02:30 PM
You just now noticed number 1?

Rockntractor
04-24-2012, 02:49 PM
You just now noticed number 1?

He is such an idiot he forgets and I have to remind him.

txradioguy
04-24-2012, 02:51 PM
There's two interesting things I noticed in this post.
1. you're an idiot.
2. You didn't answer the question the OP asked.

And that in turn completely validates what Ody said:


If the left were honest about their intentions, they would lose. Since they don't want to lose, and cannot win in an honest debate of the issues, they lie. Everything else is just window dressing.

NJCardFan
04-24-2012, 03:24 PM
Good idea. Let's see what Jesus has to say about marriage.

http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/divorce.html





Is anybody here divorced or remarried? If so, then where do you (generic you) get off judging gay people?

I am, however my first marriage was by the mayor and not in a church. My 2nd marriage was in a church and we're still married. First one wasn't "in the eyes of God". 2nd one was. Also, my first marriage ended due to adultery(not by me). If I were Muslim, I would have been free to kill my first wife. Would you have been OK with that?



Is anybody here divorced or remarried? If so, then where do you (generic you) get off judging gay people?

And where do I get off judging gays? Simple. Their lifestyle is a deviant lifestyle and it has little to do with actual love than it does sex. Anal and oral sex is all about getting off and never about procreating. Not that I don't enjoy the occasional BJ but in my relationship, I can also make babies so my relationship isn't 100% about sex. Also, I find gays obnoxious and IMO all they want is attention. Why else would you dress like this:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-VnO-neKMYSs/TyU2B3ydkDI/AAAAAAAAA0U/ZG6tYN_iuIg/s1600/2728779512_bb2ef7cb67.jpg

Wei Wu Wei
04-24-2012, 03:36 PM
Generally speaking "hot button issues" get a lot of publicity and people are well aware of what the bills are.

Issues like "prop 8" and "prop 19" in their respective states get enough publicity that generally "vote yes on prop #" is enough to get the point across without a manifesto stapled to the sign.

What is there to hide?

That's like saying phrases like "support the 2nd amendment" are trying to hide something because they don't say "I want to walk around carrying a gun on my hip like I'm in an old Clint Eastwood movie"

NJCardFan
04-24-2012, 03:40 PM
Generally speaking "hot button issues" get a lot of publicity and people are well aware of what the bills are.

Issues like "prop 8" and "prop 19" in their respective states get enough publicity that generally "vote yes on prop #" is enough to get the point across without a manifesto stapled to the sign.

What is there to hide?

That's like saying phrases like "support the 2nd amendment" are trying to hide something because they don't say "I want to walk around carrying a gun on my hip like I'm in an old Clint Eastwood movie"

You tell me what there is to hide. It's your side that is hiding their motives. That being said, it doesn't matter. If the measure passes, then the left will take it to court. Just like prop 8. To people like you, you're all about democracy until something doesn't go your way then you try to discard it through the courts. In other words, power to the people unless it goes against your views.

Wei Wu Wei
04-24-2012, 03:58 PM
If I were Muslim, I would have been free to kill my first wife. Would you have been OK with that?

lol no you wouldn't.




And where do I get off judging gays? Simple. Their lifestyle is a deviant lifestyle and it has little to do with actual love than it does sex. Anal and oral sex is all about getting off and never about procreating.

Why does procreation have to be a pre-requisite for love?

When you were a kid did your parents tell you that you couldn't get a boy and girl rabbit because they will love each other and have babies? Don't take it too literally my friend.

You've got to help explain your logic in linear terms because this doesn't make sense.



Not that I don't enjoy the occasional BJ but in my relationship, I can also make babies so my relationship isn't 100% about sex.

You enjoy acts of sodomy but that's okay because your relationship isn't a 100% about sex, which you know because you are able to make babies.

You do realize that none of this makes any sense, right?

Let's do this the logical way.

A: Gay men are 100% about sex because they enjoy oral sex.
B: You enjoy oral sex.
It would follow then that: C: your relationship is also 100% about sex, however....
D: your relationship not 100% about sex because you are able to create a baby.
E: Making a baby requires having sex.
Therefore: if all of these are true, it must be true that being 100% about sex is not connected to how much or what kind of sex one participates in, but whether it is possible (although not necessary actualized) for one to have a baby through sex.

Finally F: if your relationship is "all about sex", it is deviant and should be judged accordingly.

This would mean the following things are true:
1. You can have sex all day every day, anal, oral, ear, fetishes or whatever, and your relationship is not all about sex, if it's physically possible for you to make a baby. This is nice and decent and proper.
2. You can have sex once a month or less in an emotionally-based relationship, but your relationship is 100% about sex if you are unable to make a baby. This is deviant and wrong.

This means heterosexual relationships with post-menopausal women or partners who otherwise are not able to have children are "100% about sex" and therefore should be judged as deviant.


Also, I find gays obnoxious and IMO all they want is attention. Why else would you dress like this:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-VnO-neKMYSs/TyU2B3ydkDI/AAAAAAAAA0U/ZG6tYN_iuIg/s1600/2728779512_bb2ef7cb67.jpg
[/quote]

You are confusing "those gays" with "gays" in general. I've known several homosexuals since college and none of them did anything like that. In fact, at some crazier college parties in my younger days, straight men were doing things closer to that.

If you find homosexuality to be gross, that's fine. If you don't like seeing men dance around in gay pride parades, then that's fine too, you don't have to like it. If you think gays are filthy sodomites who deserve to be buried, well that's your thing I hope that works for you.

I personally think it's silly to be so sensitive about gays, but that's because I live in a gay-friendly city and I've had more exposure. The shock has worn off long ago and it's really no big deal to me. I can totally see how someone with traditional values and traditional gender roles would see it as perverted and wrong. I'm not going to tell you that you should not feel that way.

Living in a society like ours with different groups doesn't mean you have to smile and get along with everyone and like everyone and hold hands and form a rainbow and appreciate everyone's differences. In fact, if anything it means there is going to be more conflict and discomfort from having things you don't agree with around.

However, if you want to have to right to be opposed to homosexuality, the right to teach your kids that homosexuality is a perverted lifestyle, the right to say you think it's gross (and I think you should have all these rights staunchly protected from oversensitive liberals), then you should also respect the rights of them to live their lifestyle in their own homes. That's the give and take.

I think if you are opposed to the stereotypical promiscuity and lewdness of homosexuality, then you should let them be married, if anything that will encourage a more toned-down monogamous brand of homosexuality that you can more easily ignore.

Artois
04-24-2012, 03:58 PM
Gay marriage is up for a vote in our state this May. An amendment to the state constitution that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Simple enough.

Signs are popping up in support and opposition of the amendment. Most of the support signs say "Marriage - One Man One Woman - Vote Yes on Amendment One"

The signs against say "Vote against Amendment One".

Why can't the left just say what it means?

I've been shaking my head at some of those signs, they've really started to proliferate in the past few weeks.

Wei Wu Wei
04-24-2012, 04:05 PM
You tell me what there is to hide. It's your side that is hiding their motives. That being said, it doesn't matter. If the measure passes, then the left will take it to court. Just like prop 8. To people like you, you're all about democracy until something doesn't go your way then you try to discard it through the courts. In other words, power to the people unless it goes against your views.

What does this have to do with me? I support gay rights but honestly it's very low on my political radar. I see it as just another part of milquetoast liberal multiculturalism (which I have offered many criticisms of).

I've noticed something about your pattern of posting, you almost always tell me what I believe and how wrong it is, but I can't recall a single time you've honestly asked me if I agreed or disagreed with something, or openly asked me to articulate my thoughts on a subject.

You simply conflate me (and everyone else who is politically to the left of you) with this large thing called "liberalism".

I don't think it's simply fighting strawmen, you seem eager to beat up on "liberalism" and you use people on the internet who are to the left of you to stand in for that place so you have an object to aim your frustration at. I am eager to beat up on liberalism as well, so perhaps your motivations are misplaced.

I have many extreme criticisms about liberals today and you'd be surprised how often I agree with you, even though I'm looking at them from a different angle.

You should try to get my perspective before you argue against it.

Zeus
04-24-2012, 04:53 PM
There's two interesting things I noticed in this thread.


1. There is an argument that our society being too much of a "me" society is dangerous. The argument is that no one is an island, and that policies affect society as a whole. There is an implicit idea that we, as members of this society, need to think beyond our own selves and consider what is good for the society we live in, if we want to continue to benefit from living in a prosperous society.

You claim that allowing gay marriage will undermine moral principles and social constructs which benefit our society, and with these social institutions changing, the end result will be detrimental to all of us.

Now I don't agree with that conclusion, but I hope you can agree that I've followed your logic correctly.

What I have an issue with, is a stark inconsistency with arguments I've seen countless times over on other issues, such as health care or education. Over and over I hear people say "why should I pay for public education if I don't have kids or if my kids don't go to public school?". Doesn't the same line of logic apply here: education is a public good that benefits the society as a whole that your family lives in. Rather than simply thinking of yourself, you should think beyond your own nose and support institutions that benefit all of us, if you want to your children to live in a functional society.

As for health care, the same thing applies: "why should I have to pay for someone else's health care? I have my own health care from my job". Again, as a society, health institutions benefit all of us since we can only function in relation to one another.

I'm curious how the people who advocate this line of logic reconcile this apparent inconsistency.



2. The justification for the argument that gay marriage will harm society seems to be as follows:
Kids need a good family life when they are young.
If they do not have a good family life, they are more likely to miss out on character-building foundations that will allow them to be responsible, functional adults.
The model for a good family life is the Nuclear Family.
The further one deviates from this ideal Nuclear Family, the worse the childhood conditions will be for raising a proper adult.
Note: While not everyone from a good nuclear family will grow up to be a proper adult, and while not everyone from a broken home or alternative family structure will grow up to be a criminal deviant, it is safe to say that the odds are more likely in that respect.

Have I followed this line of logic correctly?

If so, I've spotted another inconsistency. On the issue of welfare reform, many conservatives state that it is important for single mothers to work if they want to receive government assistance. This brings up a tricky situation: if a single mother is poor, forcing her to work in order to get assistance means her child or children will have less parental support in their formative years. In this case, some right-wingers support separating a child from their mother to make sure the mother isn't getting a "free-ride". They think teaching the mother a lesson is more important than the child having a parent at home with them. Don't conservatives who see the extreme important value of parental structure see how these policies may result in poorly-reared children who grow up to be maladjusted adults?

Wei,

There is no inconsistency. On the issue of welfare reform most single mothers aren't watching after their children so expecting them to work is only going to be a positive effect on the children. Teach by example, instill in them the work ethic. If you want things a job will be the best shot at getting them. Many two parent households have both parents working to support an out of control Tax anything and everything govt. Sure it would be better for a parent to stay home and rear the children but one parent works primarily to pay the tax bill the other for support.

So you can see there is no inconsistency in the Welfare to work argument.

Try harder next time.

Wei Wu Wei
04-24-2012, 06:09 PM
Wei,

There is no inconsistency. On the issue of welfare reform most single mothers aren't watching after their children so expecting them to work is only going to be a positive effect on the children.

Whoa now this is just a wild accusation. Do you have some evidence for this claim?


Teach by example, instill in them the work ethic. If you want things a job will be the best shot at getting them. Many two parent households have both parents working to support an out of control Tax anything and everything govt. Sure it would be better for a parent to stay home and rear the children but one parent works primarily to pay the tax bill the other for support.

How about this, if a person is receiving welfare, they should be required to take job training classes or do volunteer work. However, these volunteer hours and classes should be at flexible schedules (changable hours, night classes, etc) to allow parents to raise their children.

I would even support optional pro-family parenting classes, nutrition classes, and other information sources that would help parents raise their kids better.

The tricky part is requiring people to do things that will take them away from their kids.

Another option, if you really want parents to work to receive welfare (I'm not entirely opposed to the idea of people having to work for benefits. I agree that sitting in your butt and getting welfare checks is not a good thing), is to have government-funded daycare centers for their children. This would be costly, but if the theory holds that making people work for welfare will ultimately result in less people on welfare, it should pay for itself. Not to mention the next generation of kids having better upbringing opportunities, so they have a better chance of not needing welfare when they grow up.



So you can see there is no inconsistency in the Welfare to work argument.

Try harder next time.

There is an inconsistency as it is normally presented, but with some modifications, those inconsistencies are fixed and I can get behind it fully.

Odysseus
04-24-2012, 06:40 PM
There's two interesting things I noticed in this thread.

That's two more than we usually find in any thread that you contribute to.



1. There is an argument that our society being too much of a "me" society is dangerous. The argument is that no one is an island, and that policies affect society as a whole. There is an implicit idea that we, as members of this society, need to think beyond our own selves and consider what is good for the society we live in, if we want to continue to benefit from living in a prosperous society.

You claim that allowing gay marriage will undermine moral principles and social constructs which benefit our society, and with these social institutions changing, the end result will be detrimental to all of us.

Now I don't agree with that conclusion, but I hope you can agree that I've followed your logic correctly.

No, you haven't. The issue is that marriage is a critical institution to any society. Redefining it to suit the whims of the moment undermines it and opens the floodgates to a chaotic culture.


What I have an issue with, is a stark inconsistency with arguments I've seen countless times over on other issues, such as health care or education. Over and over I hear people say "why should I pay for public education if I don't have kids or if my kids don't go to public school?". Doesn't the same line of logic apply here: education is a public good that benefits the society as a whole that your family lives in. Rather than simply thinking of yourself, you should think beyond your own nose and support institutions that benefit all of us, if you want to your children to live in a functional society.

As for health care, the same thing applies: "why should I have to pay for someone else's health care? I have my own health care from my job". Again, as a society, health institutions benefit all of us since we can only function in relation to one another.

I'm curious how the people who advocate this line of logic reconcile this apparent inconsistency.

There is no inconsistency. You are taking two things that have nothing to do with each other and creating a false connection. Public education is bad policy because it is a state attempt at monopolizing education, and because it undermines the prerogatives of parents to supervise the education of their children, while empowering a permanent education establishment whose sole interest is the perpetuation of its own perks. Publicly-run health care is bad policy because it imposes government between doctors and patients. Both are also bad policy because they start with the false but pernicious assumption that government can manage transactions better than the people who engage in them. Believing that gay marriage isn't marriage does not disqualify someone from believing that government should not be in the business of dictating education or health care.


2. The justification for the argument that gay marriage will harm society seems to be as follows:
Kids need a good family life when they are young.
If they do not have a good family life, they are more likely to miss out on character-building foundations that will allow them to be responsible, functional adults.
The model for a good family life is the Nuclear Family.
The further one deviates from this ideal Nuclear Family, the worse the childhood conditions will be for raising a proper adult.
Note: While not everyone from a good nuclear family will grow up to be a proper adult, and while not everyone from a broken home or alternative family structure will grow up to be a criminal deviant, it is safe to say that the odds are more likely in that respect.

Have I followed this line of logic correctly?

No. Children benefit from having a mother and a father. They are not interchangeable. Gay marriage is simply another assault on the institution, for the purpose of undermining it. The progressive's endstate is not gay marriage, but no marriage. Since they began attacking the institution, through the introduction of no-fault divorce, feminism, sexual promiscuity and varying alternative lifestyles, marriage has deteriorated. More marriages end in divorce, illegitimacy rates have exploded and more children have grown up in poverty. This, of course, spurs more demands for day care, child welfare programs, school lunch programs, and a host of other welfare state initiatives that put the state in the position of surrogate parent. Gay marriage is an incremental step in the road to the end of marriage as we have always understood it.


If so, I've spotted another inconsistency. On the issue of welfare reform, many conservatives state that it is important for single mothers to work if they want to receive government assistance. This brings up a tricky situation: if a single mother is poor, forcing her to work in order to get assistance means her child or children will have less parental support in their formative years. In this case, some right-wingers support separating a child from their mother to make sure the mother isn't getting a "free-ride". They think teaching the mother a lesson is more important than the child having a parent at home with them. Don't conservatives who see the extreme important value of parental structure see how these policies may result in poorly-reared children who grow up to be maladjusted adults?

You keep pretending that people are not rational actors, and attributing morality to economics. The simple fact is that when you subsidize something, you get more of it. If you subsidize single motherhood, you get more single mothers, and more children being raised by dysfunctional single parents. A single mother who knows that she will be taken care of by the state has no incentive not to become a single mother. In fact, in the ghetto culture, there is a strong desire to have children so that a girl can become independent of her own mother (her dependence on the state doesn't register, since everyone that she sees who isn't dependent on the state has been presented as an enemy). The dissolution of family creates a demand for services from the ever-expanding state. They replace fathers with government.



Generally speaking "hot button issues" get a lot of publicity and people are well aware of what the bills are.

Issues like "prop 8" and "prop 19" in their respective states get enough publicity that generally "vote yes on prop #" is enough to get the point across without a manifesto stapled to the sign.

What is there to hide?

That's like saying phrases like "support the 2nd amendment" are trying to hide something because they don't say "I want to walk around carrying a gun on my hip like I'm in an old Clint Eastwood movie"

Except that when we say "Support the Second Amendment", we are saying support the right to keep and bear arms, and everybody who has a passing acquaintance with the Constitution knows this. Those who don't know it are presumably too ignorant to be voting on the issue, but we know that this doesn't stop anyone. However, saying "Vote No on Prop One" without stating what Prop One is, especially since Prop One on this ballot isn't the same as Prop One on the last one. It's the left that has to hide its intent with euphemisms and abstractions. We're perfectly happy to speak plainly.

Zeus
04-24-2012, 06:57 PM
Whoa now this is just a wild accusation. Do you have some evidence for this claim?



How about this, if a person is receiving welfare, they should be required to take job training classes or do volunteer work. However, these volunteer hours and classes should be at flexible schedules (changable hours, night classes, etc) to allow parents to raise their children.

I would even support optional pro-family parenting classes, nutrition classes, and other information sources that would help parents raise their kids better.

The tricky part is requiring people to do things that will take them away from their kids.

Another option, if you really want parents to work to receive welfare (I'm not entirely opposed to the idea of people having to work for benefits. I agree that sitting in your butt and getting welfare checks is not a good thing), is to have government-funded daycare centers for their children. This would be costly, but if the theory holds that making people work for welfare will ultimately result in less people on welfare, it should pay for itself. Not to mention the next generation of kids having better upbringing opportunities, so they have a better chance of not needing welfare when they grow up.




There is an inconsistency as it is normally presented, but with some modifications, those inconsistencies are fixed and I can get behind it fully.

The evidence is all around you and on the nightly news etc.

Pre-K programs, After school programs etc. there are plenty of free outlets available for single mothers to have their children taken care of so they can work.

Also a plethora of programs/classes such as parenting ,financial planning , budgeting , cooking , nutrition etc that are low cost/free in pretty much any community out there. lots of these classes provide free/low cost daycare to attendees.

EIC tax credit will pay for most of if not all of the daycare costs for a working mother.

The excuses are unfounded they just need to get off their lazy behind and do something for the betterment of self,their children and their community at large.

Apache
04-24-2012, 07:43 PM
I'm still waiting...


http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/rolleye/rolleye0012.gif


Gen Why, Lanie....

NJCardFan
04-25-2012, 04:34 AM
I'm still waiting...


http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/rolleye/rolleye0012.gif


Gen Why, Lanie....

You're not going to get a response. Lanie, like all libs, like to cherry pick verses out of the Bible then misquote them to make their point but when called out on it, they run like scared sheep. It's like the argument concerning Jesus. Blacks like to bring up the line in Revelations about His hair being like wool and his feet like brass in an attempt to show that Christ was a person of color, however, they don't give you the whole verse that talks about His hair being WHITE like wool and how his feet SHONE like fine brass. No color is given, just what John describes.

txradioguy
04-25-2012, 05:56 AM
You're not going to get a response. Lanie, like all libs, like to cherry pick verses out of the Bible then misquote them to make their point but when called out on it, they run like scared sheep. It's like the argument concerning Jesus. Blacks like to bring up the line in Revelations about His hair being like wool and his feet like brass in an attempt to show that Christ was a person of color, however, they don't give you the whole verse that talks about His hair being WHITE like wool and how his feet SHONE like fine brass. No color is given, just what John describes.

And if you embarass her too much when you call her out...she'll start a Fight Club thread about you asking "why do you call yourself a Christian"?

:rolleyes:

Novaheart
04-25-2012, 08:52 AM
Whether you know it or not,am willing to admit it or not, the disintegration of the nuclear family has already had an affect on you and everyone in society. I fail to grasp the Ideology that what happens beyond the end of ones nose has no effect on them. The Moral underpinnings of a civil society are rotting away all in the name of if it feels good do it.

The disintegration of the nuclear family, more accurately of SOME nuclear families, has nothing whatsoever to do with gay rights or gay marriage. Nope! That one can be placed fair and square where the blame belongs: heterosexuals who get married and divorced left and right.

Heather already had two mommies, her mother and her stepmother.... long before same sex marriage was legal in any state.

Zeus
04-25-2012, 11:14 AM
The disintegration of the nuclear family, more accurately of SOME nuclear families, has nothing whatsoever to do with gay rights or gay marriage. Nope! That one can be placed fair and square where the blame belongs: heterosexuals who get married and divorced left and right.

Heather already had two mommies, her mother and her stepmother.... long before same sex marriage was legal in any state.

Well of course it's heterosexuals for now,If it's broke why break it more,fix it.

Generation Why?
04-25-2012, 02:09 PM
I'm still waiting...


http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/rolleye/rolleye0012.gif


Gen Why, Lanie....

Was at the range all yesterday. A response is forthcoming.

Generation Why?
04-25-2012, 02:13 PM
I will never accept homosexuality.An amendment, a law, a whatever doesn't make homosexuality normal or acceptable. It is deviant AND a sin... period!

Ok, it's a sin in youe eyes, and the eyes of many. So what. If there is a God and being gay is a sin, then they are going to hell. Move on.

Generation Why?
04-25-2012, 02:17 PM
And why exactly is it that you "Absolutely will not accept homosexuality" to paraphrase? That would be like denouncing the moon: whether you accept it or not, it's there.

Gentleman Pirate
04-25-2012, 03:21 PM
Ok, it's a sin in youe eyes, and the eyes of many. So what. If there is a God and being gay is a sin, then they are going to hell. Move on.

good point

Zeus
04-25-2012, 03:32 PM
"God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?" (Romans 6:2)

It is not normal for a saved man to allow sin to go unchallenged in his life. The true believer will hate sin in his life and fight it. How could a man who has the spirit of God indwelling him, think nothing of allowing blatant sin to remain unopposed. Jesus said, "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other." (Matthew 6:24) Paul explains further, "Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? (Romans 6:16)

.

NJCardFan
04-25-2012, 03:49 PM
Ok, it's a sin in youe eyes, and the eyes of many. So what. If there is a God and being gay is a sin, then they are going to hell. Move on.

Being gay isn't the sin moron. It's the act, not the feeling.

Generation Why?
04-25-2012, 04:42 PM
Being gay isn't the sin moron. It's the act, not the feeling.

I am not the one that said it was a sin. I believe the biblical term is abomination.

Gentleman Pirate
04-25-2012, 05:06 PM
Being gay isn't the sin moron. It's the act, not the feeling.
"Being Gay" would actually be the sin. Generation Why, didn't say "feeling gay" in that statement.

we could get into the philosophy of what "Being" means, but I think we all know what was meant in this statement.

I like Daniel Tosh's view on Homosexuality.
http://comedians.jokes.com/daniel-tosh/videos/daniel-tosh---to-the-mormons

Generation Why?
04-25-2012, 05:15 PM
"Being Gay" would actually be the sin. Generation Why, didn't say "feeling gay" in that statement.

we could get into the philosophy of what "Being" means, but I think we all know what was meant in this statement.

I like Daniel Tosh's view on Homosexuality.
http://comedians.jokes.com/daniel-tosh/videos/daniel-tosh---to-the-mormons

That Goalline defense

Apache
04-25-2012, 05:32 PM
Ok, it's a sin in youe eyes, and the eyes of many. So what. If there is a God and MURDER is a sin, then they are going to hell. Move on.

Fixed to reflect truth...

Gentleman Pirate
04-25-2012, 05:34 PM
That Goalline defense


Exactly..


See, Every Homosexual in this country that I know, know what my religion feels about their lifestyle. They want to do what they do, its on them. I have been directed by my savior to love my neighbor and not to judge.


It is between that person and Jesus what kind of life they live. It is my responsibility to love my neighbor and to judge not unless ye be judged. Its not my job to correct a behavior. Its my job to make the introduction to Jesus if you've never heard of him and pray for your salvation if you have and rebuke him.

It's on big guns upstairs to correct you in any way he see fits.

Gentleman Pirate
04-25-2012, 05:39 PM
Fixed to reflect truth...

And what job is it of ours as a Christian to do to this murderer? What have we been asked to do by Jesus when it comes to our brethren?


If a murderer then asks for forgiveness and becomes a Christian are you better or worse than he is? How about your sin? Is the sin you commit on a daily basis better or worse than murder?

Generation Why?
04-25-2012, 05:43 PM
Fixed to reflect truth...

What? Where is murder coming into play in this scenario?

Zeus
04-25-2012, 06:18 PM
Exactly..


See, Every Homosexual in this country that I know, know what my religion feels about their lifestyle. They want to do what they do, its on them. I have been directed by my savior to love my neighbor and not to judge.


It is between that person and Jesus what kind of life they live. It is my responsibility to love my neighbor and to judge not unless ye be judged. Its not my job to correct a behavior. Its my job to make the introduction to Jesus if you've never heard of him and pray for your salvation if you have and rebuke him.

It's on big guns upstairs to correct you in any way he see fits.

Who is your savior ?


"God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?" (Romans 6:2)

It is not normal for a saved man to allow sin to go unchallenged in his life. The true believer will hate sin in his life and fight it. How could a man who has the spirit of God indwelling him, think nothing of allowing blatant sin to remain unopposed. Jesus said, "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other." (Matthew 6:24) Paul explains further, "Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? (Romans 6:16)

Apache
04-25-2012, 06:21 PM
What? Where is murder coming into play in this scenario?

In the Lord's eyes, sin is sin, no matter what the sin is. I just changed the sin to see your reaction to it.



I'm still waiting for you to respond to post #13...

Novaheart
04-25-2012, 06:30 PM
Who is your savior ?

Thor. Now grow up.

Zeus
04-25-2012, 06:36 PM
Thor. Now grow up.


Was a simple question.

I posted what my Savior Jesus Christ said about sin. Was dramatically different from GW said his/her savior said about sin.

Apache
04-25-2012, 06:53 PM
Thor. Now grow up.

Whatever princess...:rolleyes:

Apache
04-25-2012, 07:22 PM
Was at the range all yesterday. A response is forthcoming.

Still at the range?


Post#13 still needs a reply...

BadCat
04-25-2012, 07:54 PM
I'm voting against it simply because liberals want it to pass.

ANYTHING a liberal wants is bad for the country.

Lanie
04-25-2012, 09:07 PM
I'm voting against it simply because liberals want it to pass.

ANYTHING a liberal wants is bad for the country.

???


In any case, vote your conscience. Have a mind of your own outside of what supposedly is the liberal or the conservative thing to do.

Lanie
04-25-2012, 09:14 PM
I am, however my first marriage was by the mayor and not in a church. My 2nd marriage was in a church and we're still married. First one wasn't "in the eyes of God". 2nd one was. Also, my first marriage ended due to adultery(not by me). If I were Muslim, I would have been free to kill my first wife. Would you have been OK with that?

If you promised to take your first wife until death do you part, then it was valid in the eyes of God. My church would say your second marriage wasn't valid unless the first one got annulled. Do you think my church should get a say so in regards to whether you get to be legally married to your second wife?

If gays could be married by a JP instead of a preacher, would you support allowing it?

As for your Muslim reference, it's also in the old testament of the Bible. Sure, let's defend "traditional" marriage. (eye roll).




And where do I get off judging gays? Simple. Their lifestyle is a deviant lifestyle and it has little to do with actual love than it does sex. Anal and oral sex is all about getting off and never about procreating. Not that I don't enjoy the occasional BJ but in my relationship, I can also make babies so my relationship isn't 100% about sex. Also, I find gays obnoxious and IMO all they want is attention. Why else would you dress like this:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-VnO-neKMYSs/TyU2B3ydkDI/AAAAAAAAA0U/ZG6tYN_iuIg/s1600/2728779512_bb2ef7cb67.jpg

[/QUOTE]

You're ignorant, NJ. Many gays fall in love. That's why they want legal rights as partners. You got a picture? So do I.

http://weprideny.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/gay-marriage-new-york-old-female-couple-e1324923486947-450x299.jpg

Yeah, that's a real harm to my potential marriage.

BTW, just because two heterosexuals gets married doesn't mean they'll have children. My fundamentalist Christian aunt has been married to my uncle for over twenty years and has no children with him. She decided a long time ago she didn't want kids. There are also gay people who have kids. Some gays go out of their way to get a kid (artificial and so forth). You're really ignorant.

Oh, and fyi, a lot of heterosexual men are very very very much into anal and oral sex. The fact that they can have babies with a woman they're with means NOTHING. They still like oral and anal. Hon, many heterosexual guys are far from moral. Sexuality isn't what makes one a deviant horntoad. As somebody who has been a good girl for too long, I would know. There's a reason I'm still single. Heterosexual men are often pigs. Those heterosexual men are not near moral superiority in most cases.

Apache
04-25-2012, 09:32 PM
If you promised to take your first wife until death do you part, then it was valid in the eyes of God. My church would say your second marriage wasn't valid unless the first one got annulled. Do you think my church should get a say so in regards to whether you get to be legally married to your second wife?

If gays could be married by a JP instead of a preacher, would you support allowing it?

As for your Muslim reference, it's also in the old testament of the Bible. Sure, let's defend "traditional" marriage. (eye roll).







You're ignorant, NJ. Many gays fall in love. That's why they want legal rights as partners. You got a picture? So do I.

http://weprideny.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/gay-marriage-new-york-old-female-couple-e1324923486947-450x299.jpg

Yeah, that's a real harm to my potential marriage.

BTW, just because two heterosexuals gets married doesn't mean they'll have children. My fundamentalist Christian aunt has been married to my uncle for over twenty years and has no children with him. She decided a long time ago she didn't want kids. There are also gay people who have kids. Some gays go out of their way to get a kid (artificial and so forth). You're really ignorant.

Oh, and fyi, a lot of heterosexual men are very very very much into anal and oral sex. The fact that they can have babies with a woman they're with means NOTHING. They still like oral and anal. Hon, many heterosexual guys are far from moral. Sexuality isn't what makes one a deviant horntoad. As somebody who has been a good girl for too long, I would know. There's a reason I'm still single. Heterosexual men are often pigs. Those heterosexual men are not near moral superiority in most cases.[/QUOTE]

So you ARE telling God to SHOVE IT....

Gotcha!

Lanie
04-25-2012, 10:50 PM
You're ignorant, NJ. Many gays fall in love. That's why they want legal rights as partners. You got a picture? So do I.

http://weprideny.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/gay-marriage-new-york-old-female-couple-e1324923486947-450x299.jpg

Yeah, that's a real harm to my potential marriage.

BTW, just because two heterosexuals gets married doesn't mean they'll have children. My fundamentalist Christian aunt has been married to my uncle for over twenty years and has no children with him. She decided a long time ago she didn't want kids. There are also gay people who have kids. Some gays go out of their way to get a kid (artificial and so forth). You're really ignorant.

Oh, and fyi, a lot of heterosexual men are very very very much into anal and oral sex. The fact that they can have babies with a woman they're with means NOTHING. They still like oral and anal. Hon, many heterosexual guys are far from moral. Sexuality isn't what makes one a deviant horntoad. As somebody who has been a good girl for too long, I would know. There's a reason I'm still single. Heterosexual men are often pigs. Those heterosexual men are not near moral superiority in most cases.

So you ARE telling God to SHOVE IT....

Gotcha![/QUOTE]

No, I'm simply not being a HYPOCRITE like probably 95% of conservative men out there.

At least NJ answered my question about divorce and remarriage. That's more than I can say for the rest of you.

Most heterosexual men (including conservative men) have sex before marriage and some have untraditional sex at that. Want to talk about sexual deviance? Pre-marital sex is sexual deviance. Sex before marriage is going against God. Most conservative men do have sex before marriage. Guess who isn't having sex out of respect for God? This evil liberal here. How many of you good, conservative, supposedly more moral people have been willing to wait? How many? Answer me please. I love God, and I won't have some self-righteous hypocrites telling me otherwise.

And once gain, if you got remarried, you are NOT into traditional marriage. According to traditional Christian values, you're breaking God's law. Once again, what right do you have to point the finger at the gays?

Jesus also said not to fuss at somebody for having sawdust in their eyes when you've got an entire block into yours. THAT is telling God to shove it.

If you're one of these people who was celibate before marriage, doesn't believe in remarriage, then fine. If you're one of these people who have a problem with God's rule about waiting for marriage or somebody who wouldn't do what it took to keep a marriage alive, then stop acting like you're righteous. You're not.

I question whether I should be saying this stuff. I'm just tired of seeing the self-righteousness of the conservative side. You all do your own sins, but you act like libs are the only ones. Here's a strange idea. Let God do the judging.

NJCardFan
04-25-2012, 10:58 PM
If you promised to take your first wife until death do you part, then it was valid in the eyes of God. My church would say your second marriage wasn't valid unless the first one got annulled. Do you think my church should get a say so in regards to whether you get to be legally married to your second wife?


And you call me ignorant. It has already been pointed out that in scripture, the only excuse for divorce would be due to adultery. My ex left me for another man. What was I supposed to do, chase after her to stick it out? Um, no. So strike one.




You're ignorant, NJ. Many gays fall in love. That's why they want legal rights as partners. You got a picture? So do I.*
Um, gays already have legal rights that hetero couples don't have. Case in point, where I work, gays can put their "domestic partner" on their insurance. Hetero couples living together don't get to do this. Strike 2.



BTW, just because two heterosexuals gets married doesn't mean they'll have children. My fundamentalist Christian aunt has been married to my uncle for over twenty years and has no children with him. She decided a long time ago she didn't want kids. There are also gay people who have kids. Some gays go out of their way to get a kid (artificial and so forth). You're really ignorant.


Um, there is the ability to produce children. And no matter how hard you try, there is no biological way for 2 men or 2 women to produce a child. No possible way. I don't care how hard you try. To reiterate, there is no possible way for gays to produce children the traditional, erm, only way there is to have children. Strike 3



Oh, and fyi, a lot of heterosexual men are very very very much into anal and oral sex. The fact that they can have babies with a woman they're with means NOTHING. They still like oral and anal. Hon, many heterosexual guys are far from moral. Sexuality isn't what makes one a deviant horntoad. As somebody who has been a good girl for too long, I would know. There's a reason I'm still single. Heterosexual men are often pigs. Those heterosexual men are not near moral superiority in most cases.
You accuse me of ignorance and bigotry and yet you put forth this. :rolleyes: I may be ignorant but you're a stone cold idiot.

Apache
04-25-2012, 11:53 PM
No, I'm simply not being a HYPOCRITE like probably 95% of conservative men out there.

At least NJ answered my question about divorce and remarriage. That's more than I can say for the rest of you.

Most heterosexual men (including conservative men) have sex before marriage and some have untraditional sex at that. Want to talk about sexual deviance? Pre-marital sex is sexual deviance. Sex before marriage is going against God. Most conservative men do have sex before marriage. Guess who isn't having sex out of respect for God? This evil liberal here. How many of you good, conservative, supposedly more moral people have been willing to wait? How many? Answer me please. I love God, and I won't have some self-righteous hypocrites telling me otherwise.

And once gain, if you got remarried, you are NOT into traditional marriage. According to traditional Christian values, you're breaking God's law. Once again, what right do you have to point the finger at the gays?

Jesus also said not to fuss at somebody for having sawdust in their eyes when you've got an entire block into yours. THAT is telling God to shove it.

If you're one of these people who was celibate before marriage, doesn't believe in remarriage, then fine. If you're one of these people who have a problem with God's rule about waiting for marriage or somebody who wouldn't do what it took to keep a marriage alive, then stop acting like you're righteous. You're not.

I question whether I should be saying this stuff. I'm just tired of seeing the self-righteousness of the conservative side. You all do your own sins, but you act like libs are the only ones. Here's a strange idea. Let God do the judging.

First of all Lanie, I too, answered your question. I also gave you Biblical proof that in God's eyes my divorce was justified AND that I am able to remarry ( if I so choose to ) without comitting adultry... you skipped that I guess.

As for premarital sex, I can only speak for myself. I barely get time to go into town, let alone meet someone!

You seem to be stuck on "Judge not, lest ye be judged", I can understand that. That verse has been twisted to mean, DON'T JUDGE ANYTHING! That's not, however, what it means. It means don't judge hypocritically, like you said, railing against premarital sex then going home to bang your girlfriend...

Condoning Homosexuality, the "marrying" of gays, lying, cheating, etc. is not part of "judge not"...
2 Timothy 4:2
Preach the Word
2 preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.


Do you understand what I'm saying?

Lanie
04-26-2012, 12:00 AM
And you call me ignorant. It has already been pointed out that in scripture, the only excuse for divorce would be due to adultery. My ex left me for another man. What was I supposed to do, chase after her to stick it out? Um, no. So strike one.

There is some debate as to whether adultry is an out. In any case, I wasn't just referring to you, NJ. I was also referring to the many people who loooooove their spouses until there isn't as much spark in the marriage, until they find somebody new that they 'love,' etc. If your spouse cheats on you, beats you, is some drug addict or something, that's one thing. I do not believe that is making up the 50% or more of couples getting a divorce. I could be wrong though. Truth is people are not taking marriage seriously. Marriage is until death do you part. Not until the going gets tough.




Um, gays already have legal rights that hetero couples don't have. Case in point, where I work, gays can put their "domestic partner" on their insurance. Hetero couples living together don't get to do this. Strike 2.


This is determined by states. Many states have what you call common law marriage, which gives heterosexual couples who have been together so long the same legal rights as those who got married. In NC, people who live in particular counties can share benefits with another domestic partner, any domestic partner. It doesn't have to be the same gender. Show me one law on the books in favor of gays that can't work out in favor of heterosexuals.


Um, there is the ability to produce children. And no matter how hard you try, there is no biological way for 2 men or 2 women to produce a child. No possible way. I don't care how hard you try. To reiterate, there is no possible way for gays to produce children the traditional, erm, only way there is to have children. Strike 3

So, if marriage is all about the ability to produce children, then should people who can't produce children refrain from marriage? If you don't want kids, should you refrain from marriage?



You accuse me of ignorance and bigotry and yet you put forth this. :rolleyes: I may be ignorant but you're a stone cold idiot.

I'm putting forth facts. You know, in the great moral state of NC, where they are about to have a "marriage" amendment passed, did you know they stopped requiring soon to be married couples to have a blood test before they got married? The logic was that most engaged couples were having sex anyway, so why bother?

There are heterosexual people out there who are having trouble finding the right mate. It's not because of homosexuals or some evil liberal. It's because the people they get interested in are just not interested in waiting until marriage. They're willing to judge gays for being gays and women for wanting their birth control covered, but they're not quite willing to wait until marriage themselves. Some are not even interested in waiting until the second date. How can we talk about the sanctity of marriage or fidelity with a straight face? This is a joke.

Lanie
04-26-2012, 12:15 AM
Okay, so the argument is that gays are sexually deviant, immoral, sinning. My argument is so are most heterosexuals and even most conservative, heterosexual men. Instead of posting a picture, I will post facts to support this.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17236611

Data from the 2002 survey indicate that by age 20, 77% of respondents had had sex, 75% had had premarital sex, and 12% had married; by age 44, 95% of respondents (94% of women, 96% of men, and 97% of those who had ever had sex) had had premarital sex. Even among those who abstained until at least age 20, 81% had had premarital sex by age 44. Among cohorts of women turning 15 between 1964 and 1993, at least 91% had had premarital sex by age 30. Among those turning 15 between 1954 and 1963, 82% had had premarital sex by age 30, and 88% had done so by age 44

http://martha-r-gore.suite101.com/sex-before-marriage-a83165


The highest teen-pregnancy rates are in Nevada, Arizona, Mississippi, New Mexico and Texas, all Conservative States; the lowest were in North Dakota, Vermont, New Hampshire, Minnesota and Main, all Liberal except for North Dakota.

Read more at Suite101: Sex Before Marriage: Nine out of Ten Americans Admit to Premarital Sexual Activity | Suite101.com http://martha-r-gore.suite101.com/sex-before-marriage-a83165#ixzz1t7GIzq3r

Here's another link. Note: This denomination is probably the strongest denomination here in NC.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21274632


This study measures premarital sex prevalence, sources of sex education, and support for secular sex education among 151 newly married young adults surveyed at 9 Texas Southern Baptist churches. More than 70% of respondents reported having had premarital vaginal or oral sex, but more than 80% regretted premarital sex. The proportion of premarital sex exceeded 80% in 6 of 9 churches, among men and women married after age 25 and women married before age 21. School sex education was the only source of information about sexually transmitted infections for 57% of respondents, and 65% supported secular sex education despite church opposition.

Fidelity and the sanctity of marriage anybody?

Now that I've shown the conservatives are just as bad for infidelity (or worse) than others, then here's some fun facts about Baptists (usually conservative). They get divorced a lot.

http://erlc.com/article/why-do-baptists-have-such-a-high-divorce-rate/


Now, the widely respected Barna Research Group has released the results of an in-depth study which found that while 25 percent of American adults have been divorced at least once, the divorce rate is even higher (27 percent) among self-identified “born again” Christians and higher yet (29 percent) among Baptists. While the Barna research did not distinguish among the various types of Baptists (from the more conservative Southern Baptists to the more liberal American or Northern Baptists), clearly, the divorce rate among self-identified Baptists is at least as high, if not higher, than most other religious groups in the nation.


So, we're talking about the sanctity of marriage and fidelity. Conservatives are absolutely no better than liberals on this subject. Not at all. They just act like their crap don't stink.

Apache
04-26-2012, 12:17 AM
There are heterosexual people out there who are having trouble finding the right mate. It's not because of homosexuals or some evil liberal. It's because the people they get interested in are just not interested in waiting until marriage. Some are not even interested until waiting until the second date. How can we talk about the sanctity of marriage or fidelity with a straight face? This is a joke.

So we are to perpetuate that joke?


NO! We are to stand WITH God and push back. You are being a hypocrite otherwise....

Lanie
04-26-2012, 12:27 AM
First of all Lanie, I too, answered your question. I also gave you Biblical proof that in God's eyes my divorce was justified AND that I am able to remarry ( if I so choose to ) without comitting adultry... you skipped that I guess.

As for premarital sex, I can only speak for myself. I barely get time to go into town, let alone meet someone!

You seem to be stuck on "Judge not, lest ye be judged", I can understand that. That verse has been twisted to mean, DON'T JUDGE ANYTHING! That's not, however, what it means. It means don't judge hypocritically, like you said, railing against premarital sex then going home to bang your girlfriend...

Condoning Homosexuality, the "marrying" of gays, lying, cheating, etc. is not part of "judge not"...

Do you understand what I'm saying?

I do understand what you're saying. And you know what? I'm rebutting the hypocrisy here. I guarantee you there are people who are remarried and/or got a divorce and it had nothing to do with adultry. In any case, would you support a law that said that if one got a divorce (with no adultry involved), then they can't get remarried? That is traditional marriage, is it not? Have you gone to the wedding of somebody who was getting remarried? In the eyes of my church, that marriage is as invalid as the homosexual one.

The thing is a lot of gay people love each other just as much as the heterosexual couples that you know. If they were legally allowed to get married, you could still refuse to personally recognize their marriage. You could still attend a church that said their marriage wasn't valid. I know that's true because I'm currently attending a church that doesn't recognize some of the legal marriages in this country. If gays were legally allowed to get married, you can still tell them to stay away. You can still have nothing to do with them. You can still keep your children away from them. Nothing changes but the legal status. That's it.

Social conservatives are caught up in the idea that if they consider something to be immoral, then it should be illegal. Liberals look at this subject differently. Liberals tend to ask the question of whether harm will be done if something is legal or illegal. I think that smoking tobacco like a freight train is immoral, BUT if it's made illegal then drug dealers get to deal it. Therefore, I do not support making cigarettes illegal. Now, I have sometimes wondered if liquer by the drink shouldn't be illegal because it contributes to car accidents. In this case, harm is being done.

Back to the gay marriage issue, I don't see the harm in allowing them legal status. They're not going to dissolve traditional marriage. People are not going to just leave their opposite gender spouse just because gay marriage is legal. However, I have gone over harm that will be done to gays and straights alike if this amendment gets passed.

Sorry I didn't read your post before regarding your position on divorce.

Lanie
04-26-2012, 12:38 AM
So we are to perpetuate that joke?


NO! We are to stand WITH God and push back. You are being a hypocrite otherwise....

You see a lot of pushing back on this board? I see a lot of condemnation of gays and liberals, but not of pre-marital sex.

Do you see any proposed laws against remarriage when a person's divorce had nothing to do with adultery?

I don't see any of that, but I'll tell you what I do see in real life and sometimes on these boards. People who I know are sleeping together and are not married.


I think I should also admit that I don't think homosexuality is a sin. The reason I've positioned my arguments the way I have is because I know I won't change anybody's mind about whether it's a sin or not. The way I see it, when this stuff was written in the bible, homosexuality was associated with Greeks, who often had men teach younger men how to be a man. Gross. That's not about love. That's about being a sicko. Sodam and Gomorrah were rapists. Even when I did think homosexuality was a sin, I never understood the focus on the homosexuality, but not the rape.

I think the context of scripture really really matters. I remember asking my preacher's wife why there was scripture giving the okay to slavery and she gave her explanation. Taking scripture literally, I'd have to support slavery. So, I consider context of scripture as well as literal words.

But I do love God and I do try to keep his law. I just don't pretend my crap doesn't stink like some have (not necessarily you Apache, just in general).

Apache
04-26-2012, 12:40 AM
I do understand what you're saying. And you know what? I'm rebutting the hypocrisy here. I guarantee you there are people who are remarried and/or got a divorce and it had nothing to do with adultry. In any case, would you support a law that said that if one got a divorce (with no adultry involved), then they can't get remarried? That is traditional marriage, is it not? Have you gone to the wedding of somebody who was getting remarried? In the eyes of my church, that marriage is as invalid as the homosexual one.

The thing is a lot of gay people love each other just as much as the heterosexual couples that you know. If they were legally allowed to get married, you could still refuse to personally recognize their marriage. You could still attend a church that said their marriage wasn't valid. I know that's true because I'm currently attending a church that doesn't recognize some of the legal marriages in this country. If gays were legally allowed to get married, you can still tell them to stay away. You can still have nothing to do with them. You can still keep your children away from them. Nothing changes but the legal status. That's it.

Social conservatives are caught up in the idea that if they consider something to be immoral, then it should be illegal. Liberals look at this subject differently. Liberals tend to ask the question of whether harm will be done if something is legal or illegal. I think that smoking tobacco like a freight train is immoral, BUT if it's made illegal then drug dealers get to deal it. Therefore, I do not support making cigarettes illegal. Now, I have sometimes wondered if liquer by the drink shouldn't be illegal because it contributes to car accidents. In this case, harm is being done.

Back to the gay marriage issue, I don't see the harm in allowing them legal status. They're not going to dissolve traditional marriage. People are not going to just leave their opposite gender spouse just because gay marriage is legal. However, I have gone over harm that will be done to gays and straights alike if this amendment gets passed.

Sorry I didn't read your post before regarding your position on divorce.

I'll refer you back to post #76...

Rockntractor
04-26-2012, 12:49 AM
I see a lot of condemnation of gays and liberals, but not of pre-marital sex.



Since you want to compare the two together, do gay couples pray for forgiveness everyday for sodomizing each other. Do they ask god to sanctify their relationship in holy wedlock for the purpose of sodomizing each other?
You cannot condemn someone who has been forgiven, but is one forgiven that says he has not sinned and doesn't ask?

Lanie
04-26-2012, 09:51 AM
Since you want to compare the two together, do gay couples pray for forgiveness everyday for sodomizing each other. Do they ask god to sanctify their relationship in holy wedlock for the purpose of sodomizing each other?
You cannot condemn someone who has been forgiven, but is one forgiven that says he has not sinned and doesn't ask?

If you get a divorce, that's easy enough to say "I'm sorry" about. If you get remarried, then according to the literal interpretation of the bible, it's adultery. If you stay "remarried," then that's living in sin. So no, they're not sincerely asking for forgiveness of their sins either.

But remarried couples somehow think their circumstances are special. They often are in love. For those reasons, they think God will bless their unions anyway. Same thing is true for homosexuals. Some homosexuals might want a ceremony with a JP, but many of them are going before a minister to get married. That's especially true in states where gay marriage isn't legal. You hear about gays getting married there. Who do you think is marrying them? Ministers. They're not asking God to bless their sodomizing each other. That's just more ignorance. They're asking God to bless their union.

This might be my last post on the subject in this thread. I think I've made my point. I think.

Novaheart
04-26-2012, 10:28 AM
God thinks my divorce and remarriage is Otay! - lol!
It's the queers who made me marry multiple times and be a part time parent. - lol!

Novaheart
04-26-2012, 10:38 AM
.[/B]

And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.

Anybody here take his brother's widow as an additional wife?

Zeus
04-26-2012, 10:49 AM
And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.

Anybody here take his brother's widow as an additional wife?

Was the custom way back then for a brother to marry and take care of the widow of a brother. Also if the brother died without heirs. See marriage was about procreation.

NJCardFan
04-26-2012, 11:35 AM
And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.

Anybody here take his brother's widow as an additional wife?

As usual...

http://www.photography139.com/snapshots/albums/userpics/10001/normal_010ShannonPickingCherries.jpg

NJCardFan
04-26-2012, 11:38 AM
Many states have what you call common law marriage, which gives heterosexual couples who have been together so long the same legal rights as those who got married.
This only pertains to community property and not things like medical insurance. Strike 5. Why strike 5? Because if this were the case, why this whole charade? If common law marriage were treated the same as regular official marriage then gays wouldn't need marriage laws would they. They can have a wedding ceremony as large as Princess Diana and would be as married as she was at the time, all they have to do is wait a few years, right? This is why your common law argument fails on it's face.

Generation Why?
04-26-2012, 11:57 AM
Ok, show me New Testament, something immoral or wrong. It must be IN CONTEXT! Your ball...:cool:

WHy not the Old Testament?

PS: I don't get on here after 4:00 PST.

Generation Why?
04-26-2012, 12:00 PM
Was a simple question.

I posted what my Savior Jesus Christ said about sin. Was dramatically different from GW said his/her savior said about sin.

1. I am a male for future context.

2. I do not have a savior. I am an atheist. I believe in morality and knowing right from wrong.

Zeus
04-26-2012, 12:29 PM
Exactly..


See, Every Homosexual in this country that I know, know what my religion feels about their lifestyle. They want to do what they do, its on them. I have been directed by my savior to love my neighbor and not to judge.


It is between that person and Jesus what kind of life they live. It is my responsibility to love my neighbor and to judge not unless ye be judged. Its not my job to correct a behavior. Its my job to make the introduction to Jesus if you've never heard of him and pray for your salvation if you have and rebuke him.

It's on big guns upstairs to correct you in any way he see fits.

My mistake GW it was Gentleman Pirate whose statement I meant to reference.

Apache
04-26-2012, 12:35 PM
WHy not the Old Testament?

PS: I don't get on here after 4:00 PST.

Because as a Christian, I am not bound by Mosaic Law. I am bound by the New Covenant(sp?) set forth by Jesus Christ...

Generation Why?
04-26-2012, 12:55 PM
Because as a Christian, I am not bound by Mosaic Law. I am bound by the New Covenant(sp?) set forth by Jesus Christ...

I will get on that. A little busy at work right now so it will be later.

txradioguy
04-27-2012, 02:36 PM
Do you understand what I'm saying?

That's a self answering question. This is Bridget we're talking about. And you just blew her little "gotcha" apart.

Of course she won't get it.