toldailytopic: Same-sex marriage: for it, or against it?

[IXOYE]

Oh how the mighty have fallen.



Right: because only men are gay, and there's only one thing that gay people do in private. Moreover, this is an exclusively homosexual activity (and one that homophobes seem to obsess over). Seriously...you need to get over yourself.



Question for those who are homophobes or even support it being punished by death: why wouldn't you want to put gay people in harm's way?



Not a fan of this PC-run-amok nonsense myself.

And to say you don't dwell on this topic is a bald-faced and ridiculous lie.:rotfl:

I'm an ultra fundamental Christ follower. I would be to the right of Alexander, and Genghis Kahn.

The only thing I have for you in correction is, it's bold faced lie. not bald.

 

[chrysostom]

BY THE WAY...

Why don't you take your intellectually dishonest behind back up there to where my quote you responded to here came from, and answer the logic there.

I friggin taught the class for a semester in college, while I'm not a philosopher and don't claim to be some superior logic wielding dude, I'd have to argue my past in Debate and Logic would make me qualified to say, "YOU HAVE NOT SHOWN A LOGICAL RESPONSE YET!"

here is my favorite example of natural law

it is not against natural law for a man to have more than one wife
but
it is against natural law for a woman to have more than one husband

for obvious reasons

 

[Granite]

I'm an ultra fundamental Christ follower. I would be to the right of Alexander, and Genghis Kahn.

Uhhhh...good for you?

The only thing I have for you in correction is, it's bold faced lie. not bald.

Both usages are acceptable. And it's Khan, professor.

 

[TomO]

I'm an ultra fundamental Christ follower. I would be to the right of Alexander, and Genghis Kahn.

I didn't know that they were Christians. :think:

 

[Quincy]

I'm an ultra fundamental Christ follower. I would be to the right of Alexander, and Genghis Kahn.

Who's is to the left of happy ensemble? Napolean?

 

[Zeus]

Against it because homosexual sex is immoral.

Marriage is the cure then -- as in most marriages sex rate plummets.

 

[Bright Raven]

I would have no problem with it were the parties able to procreate. Homosexuality is outside the natural realm of nature. As for same sex marriage, those of us against had best brace ourselves. The federal courts have just struck down a three year long battle in the state of California, to keep the will of the people (prop 8) intact. The will of the people has been denied and same sex marriage has been legalized. Other sates will be soon to follow.

 

[zippy2006]

Maybe you should read my answer a bit more thoroughly, because I set that out. I don't believe in interference with contract to force a legal inequity on parties. What justification would you present in restricting that particular contract that didn't amount to an attempt to enforce your religious views, divorced from a secular justification in terms of harmful consequence and impact?

Absent that secular argument against state interest there's no real legs to it. You might think women shouldn't vote or be allowed to run for office based on your religious views and I'd say the very same thing to you.

:e4e:

...Which is to say that you would vote for legalizing "gay marriage," right? Is this a relatively recent development TH, or does my memory fail me?

 

[zippy2006]

Really? I wasn't aware that you knew something about me that I didn't know.

Enjoy your newfound knowledge

Do you believe in human rights above and beyond government? Do you believe that humans have a right to not be murdered because it is in their nature to live freely and peacefully?

Sarcasm aside, you're attempting to change the definitions of what is ascribed to natural law in that paper and to what a scientist might call natural laws.

Natural law is a moral term that existed back when science was still in diapers. :idunno:

 

[chrysostom]

...Which is to say that you would vote for legalizing "gay marriage," right? Is this a relatively recent development TH, or does my memory fail me?

if you want to understand what he is saying

you may have to hire yourself a lawyer

 

[kmoney]

Marriage was a secular institution before Moses ever was a twinkle in His padre's eye.

:idunno: I'm not sure why you posted that in response to my post.

 

[kmoney]

Many responses, such as your own, are symptomatic of an isolation of God from part of man's life, which is very problematic for Christians who claim to hold Dominus Deus, that Christ is the Lord of their life and the God of all. It is a sequestering of God and it is unBiblical and unChristian.

(spoken to Christians: ) You don't agree to disagree on abortion or murder, so why do you agree to disagree on the sanctity of marriage?

:e4e:

Since I'm one of the people who said I would be OK with gay marriage (assuming the government is defining things)....

I've not much to say because Sela and bybee and Buzzword have pretty much covered my views.

However, I'm not sure how supporting the legalization of gay marriage means that Christ isn't Lord of a Christian's life? The legalization of gay marriage does nothing to a Christian's life or marriage.

:e4e:

 

[Nick M]

Really? How is that?

Who married Adam and Eve?

 

[kmoney]

Marriage is the cure then -- as in most marriages sex rate plummets.

:chuckle:


But those nasty homos are so backwards, they would probably end up having more sex in marriage. :mmph:

 

[zippy2006]

I do not compare the murder of innocents to a legal contract between consenting adults.

Would you support polygamy? Would you support making suicide legal and available at hospitals? This is the path that you are choosing.

I have, in the past, stated that I am not particularly ecumenical and I don't cross over and against that which I hold dear.
Most certainly what ever is within my power to do to protect life I would do.

:e4e:

I answer only to God for my words, thoughts and deeds. I believe others do likewise, or not, as the case may be.
But you and I both must answer to the secular government based
on its laws which ought to apply equally to us all.

And we must speak, and loudly, so that the secular government does not order us to behave immorally. We are our brother's keeper, do not abandon him.

:e4e:

 

[Son of Jack]

Marriage is the cure then -- as in most marriages sex rate plummets.

How are you again?:chuckle:

Anyway, since when did it become the government's place to decide what constitutes marriage and who can be married?

 

[Rusha]

Definitely for it. Why should gays be exempt from misery? :chuckle:

 

[kmoney]

Anyway, since when did it become the government's place to decide what constitutes marriage and who can be married?

Umm....hasn't that been going on for a long time? :liberals:

 

[Son of Jack]

And we must speak, and loudly, so that the secular government does not order us to behave immorally. We are our brother's keeper, do not abandon him.

:e4e:

:think: I appreciate the direction you are headed with your argument. That said, is that what anyone is advocating? Like I mentioned previously, I don't think government should have any say in marriage.

Think about it. Did Paul advocate action against the Roman government for allowing (in limited ways) polygamy? He did say that Christian Deacons and Elders should be husbands of one wife (literally "a one-woman man"), but he didn't suggest that believers in his day try to change Roman law.

I don't know, but it is something worth considering.

 

[Son of Jack]

Umm....hasn't that been going on for a long time? :liberals:

I've been against it for a long time...:chuckle:

lain:...a long time.