• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Same Sex People be allowed to Marry

Should Same Sex People be allowed to Marry

  • yes,-- everybody should be treated equal

    Votes: 69 74.2%

  • No--some people should recieve preferential treatment

    Votes: 24 25.8%
  • Total voters
    93
Rassales said:
Okay, define "natural" then? Doesn't that have something to do with...you know...nature?
Click to expand...

Anything that human beings devise through teleological observation to be natural.

Men have a penis, women have a vagina, humanity has reason, and therefore, humanity has a moral obligation to use its reproductive parts for their intended "purpose".

Of course, by that logic, masturbation and oral sex are just as great a catastrophe since the hand or mouth to the genitals by no means satisfies their intended "purpose". And of course, any sexual behavior that does not lead to reproduction is arguably immoral, so all those people who are married to an infertile partner should probably get a divorce...or at least stop having sex with them since that is a misuse of equipment. Oh, and any recreational form of sex that uses contraception is probably evil as well.

Wow...this argument really sucks when you start using that "humanity has reason" part of the equation.
 
CriticalThought said:
Anything that human beings devise through teleological observation to be natural.

Men have a penis, women have a vagina, humanity has reason, and therefore, humanity has a moral obligation to use its reproductive parts for their intended "purpose".

Of course, by that logic, masturbation and oral sex are just as great a catastrophe since the hand or mouth to the genitals by no means satisfies their intended "purpose". And of course, any sexual behavior that does not lead to reproduction is arguably immoral, so all those people who are married to an infertile partner should probably get a divorce...or at least stop having sex with them since that is a misuse of equipment. Oh, and any recreational form of sex that uses contraception is probably evil as well.

Wow...this argument really sucks when you start using that "humanity has reason" part of the equation.
Click to expand...

Only if you make it absurd as you have done here. Who says masturbation or oral sex is wrong between consenting adults? I don't really care what two or more people do, same sex or not, in the privacy of their own homes.
I just don't don't want the definition of marriage to be changed to suit a few misguided individuals who have a very loud forum. If they choose to defy the societal norm, they need to do so without complaint that everybody does not support that decision, or that they are not getting all the perks married heterosexuals get. We too have the right to choose.
Don't even get me started on legal abortion at 25 weeks of age.
 
Reality Land said:
Only if you make it absurd as you have done here. Who says masturbation or oral sex is wrong between consenting adults? I don't really care what two or more people do, same sex or not, in the privacy of their own homes.
Click to expand...

Hey, I'm just talking about what is "natural". I can't imagine why you think it is absurd. How exactly is masturbation or oral sex anymore "natural" than gay sex? If the penis ain't going in the vagina, then that can't be considered "natural".

Of course, you could make the observation that primates utilize sex for more than simply reproduction. They also use it as a social bonding agent. It cements relationships, particularly between monogamous couples. It serves as a stress release agent. It's a recreational activity. It's a pretty multifaceted thing that is more defined by behavior than by the physical bits. But meh, that isn't nearly as fun as calling it "consumption only" and "fruitless". Ignoring the psychological and sociological benefits is perfectly fine as long as you can justify it doesn't serve some ordained biological purpose.

I just don't don't want the definition of marriage to be changed to suit a few misguided individuals who have a very loud forum.
Click to expand...

You mean like the loud forum that a preacher has when he stands in front of people and reads from an ancient book, dictating rules that are often contradictory and outdated. Yeah...we wouldn't want anyone to compete against that kind of forum to have their views heard. How dare they! You would almost think this was a free country in which people could exchange ideas openly and expect a reasonable discussion on them.

If they choose to defy the societal norm, they need to do so without complaint that everybody does not support that decision, or that they are not getting all the perks married heterosexuals get. We too have the right to choose.
Click to expand...

Those damn gays should know their place! Just like those damn black people! And those damn women! And those damn Native Americans! And any group of people who choose to stand up against societal norms! How dare they complain that they aren't treated equally! They should all just shut up! People have a right to choose to own slaves, segregate races, deny one gender the right to vote or hold office, take land that has been occupied for centuries, etc. That is what is traditional, and traditional is always right!
 
Skateguy said:
Question, if something that is not deemed natural at the moment, is repeated over a period of time, could it then be considered natural?
Click to expand...

As you observe nature, do you see a system that acts to perpetuate each species or do you see evolution that is harmful to the continued survival of species?
That should tell you all you need to know about nature.
 
CriticalThought said:
Hey, I'm just talking about what is "natural". I can't imagine why you think it is absurd. How exactly is masturbation or oral sex anymore "natural" than gay sex? If the penis ain't going in the vagina, then that can't be considered "natural".

Why? If the the penis never goes in the vagina, then you may have a point.

CriticalThought said:
Of course, you could make the observation that primates utilize sex for more than simply reproduction. They also use it as a social bonding agent. It cements relationships, particularly between monogamous couples. It serves as a stress release agent. It's a recreational activity. It's a pretty multifaceted thing that is more defined by behavior than by the physical bits. But meh, that isn't nearly as fun as calling it "consumption only" and "fruitless". Ignoring the psychological and sociological benefits is perfectly fine as long as you can justify it doesn't serve some ordained biological purpose.
Click to expand...

If it feels good, do it. But if it means that you are only doing that which feels good to the exclusion of natural sex to procreate, you have just jumped the shark.

CriticalThought said:
You mean like the loud forum that a preacher has when he stands in front of people and reads from an ancient book, dictating rules that are often contradictory and outdated. Yeah...we wouldn't want anyone to compete against that kind of forum to have their views heard. How dare they! You would almost think this was a free country in which people could exchange ideas openly and expect a reasonable discussion on them.
Click to expand...

You have decided to bring religion into this topic I suppose to try to draw an argument out of me that you feel more comfortable with; when in actuality, religion has little to do with natural law. Why do you suppose we don't want all views heard. Are we not each posting our views here? Are you againn going off on tangents that are irrelevant to this discussion? I think the term is strawman?

CriticalThought said:
Those damn gays should know their place! Just like those damn black people! And those damn women! And those damn Native Americans! And any group of people who choose to stand up against societal norms! How dare they complain that they aren't treated equally! They should all just shut up! People have a right to choose to own slaves, segregate races, deny one gender the right to vote or hold office, take land that has been occupied for centuries, etc. That is what is traditional, and traditional is always right!
Click to expand...

Now you have ventured into the extreme and created a fantasy World born out of your imagination about things that have nothing to do with the conversation. Try to focus.
We are not talking about tradition. We are talking about the decision of the majority in a democracy and natural law.
Click to expand...
 
CriticalThought said:
Hey, I'm just talking about what is "natural". I can't imagine why you think it is absurd. How exactly is masturbation or oral sex anymore "natural" than gay sex? If the penis ain't going in the vagina, then that can't be considered "natural".
Click to expand...

Why? If the the penis never goes in the vagina, then you may have a point.

CriticalThought said:
Of course, you could make the observation that primates utilize sex for more than simply reproduction. They also use it as a social bonding agent. It cements relationships, particularly between monogamous couples. It serves as a stress release agent. It's a recreational activity. It's a pretty multifaceted thing that is more defined by behavior than by the physical bits. But meh, that isn't nearly as fun as calling it "consumption only" and "fruitless". Ignoring the psychological and sociological benefits is perfectly fine as long as you can justify it doesn't serve some ordained biological purpose.
Click to expand...

If it feels good, do it. But if it means that you are only doing that which feels good to the exclusion of natural sex to procreate, you have just jumped the shark.

CriticalThought said:
You mean like the loud forum that a preacher has when he stands in front of people and reads from an ancient book, dictating rules that are often contradictory and outdated. Yeah...we wouldn't want anyone to compete against that kind of forum to have their views heard. How dare they! You would almost think this was a free country in which people could exchange ideas openly and expect a reasonable discussion on them.
Click to expand...

You have decided to bring religion into this topic I suppose to try to draw an argument out of me that you feel more comfortable with; when in actuality, religion has little to do with natural law. Why do you suppose we (I) don't want all views heard. Are we not each posting our views here? Are you again going off on tangents that are irrelevant to this discussion? I think the term is strawman?

CriticalThought said:
Those damn gays should know their place! Just like those damn black people! And those damn women! And those damn Native Americans! And any group of people who choose to stand up against societal norms! How dare they complain that they aren't treated equally! They should all just shut up! People have a right to choose to own slaves, segregate races, deny one gender the right to vote or hold office, take land that has been occupied for centuries, etc. That is what is traditional, and traditional is always right!
Click to expand...

Now you have ventured into the extreme and created a fantasy World born out of your imagination about things that have nothing to do with the conversation. Try to focus.
We are not talking about tradition. We are talking about the decision of the majority in a democracy and natural law.
 
Reality Land said:
Why? If the the penis never goes in the vagina, then you may have a point.
Click to expand...

The damn celibate priests and monks! It's disgusting how unnatural they are!

If it feels good, do it. But if it means that you are only doing that which feels good to the exclusion of natural sex to procreate, you have just jumped the shark.
Click to expand...

I think we should replace all abstinence education with that bit of wisdom.

Also, gotta love those unnatural people who choose celibacy.

Oh, and those asexual people! Can you imagine how disgusting they must be to be born without a sex drive?

I'm also sure those men who rape women and get them pregnant are certainly more in tune to that natural law than two men having sex. I mean, the former at least has a penis going into a vagina.

You have decided to bring religion into this topic I suppose to try to draw an argument out of me that you feel more comfortable with; when in actuality, religion has little to do with natural law. Why do you suppose we (I) don't want all views heard. Are we not each posting our views here? Are you again going off on tangents that are irrelevant to this discussion? I think the term is strawman?
Click to expand...

Hey, you are the person talking about loud forums. I'm just agreeing with ya. How dare gays express their opinions openly and publicly!

Now you have ventured into the extreme and created a fantasy World born out of your imagination about things that have nothing to do with the conversation. Try to focus.
We are not talking about tradition. We are talking about the decision of the majority in a democracy and natural law.
Click to expand...

Hey, you made the argument that people shouldn't dare to defy the societal norm, and I was just agreeing with you. All those groups dared to defy societal norms. They should have known better, just like the gays should know better.

I love how the "natural law" that you describe has become "Do whatever you want sexually as long as you eventually put the penis in the vagina." I can think of so many funny retorts for such a vaguely defined law. Of course, I'm assuming you are simply going to continue to attempt to tailor the "natural law" to your particular point of view, rather than what is teleologically observable. How exactly does human reason dictate that the penis must enter the vagina at some point? Is the sole purpose of every human being to attempt to procreate? If humans choose not to procreate then does that make them immoral? Most people know when to give up on a weak argument, but you just continue to make this fun for me.

Also, in case you didn't know, we live in a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy. We have what is known as a system of checks and balances in place meant to protect the rights of minorities form the tyranny of a majority.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
Here we go with more lies.
Click to expand...

Good come back. :doh

No. I am accusing you of bigotry for lumping all religious people into the same group with blanket statements that are not true.
Click to expand...

If they want to prevent gays & lesbians from getting married, simply because they are not heterosexual, then YES they are bigots. Period.

Please point out where I said homosexuals should not have the same rights? I think they should have all the rights of a married couple in a Civil Union, not a marraige.
Click to expand...

This is why you are a bigot. It's ok for YOU to get married but, not that other group. THAT is discrimination. You can't split hairs and "allow" gays & lesbians to have "civil unions". THAT is not up to you. I get a kick out of people who claim to be a Christian and then do un-Christian things to other people. If you believe in Christ, and follow his teachings, do you really think he would agree with you that "his children" who are homosexuals should be treated "any" different than you and your wife?

You really have little understanding of the Bible or it's history. I will say you have a wonderful ability to exaggerate a great deal about things you know very little about.
Click to expand...

What have I said about the bible that you think is incorrect?

It is true, you lied. It is an ad Hom yes, would it feel better if I called you a fabricator of tall tails?
Click to expand...

You call me a liar then say it was an ad hom. There's quite a difference between the two. Are you not old enough to know the difference between the two? Should we be talking face to face and you falsely accused me of being a liar I may not be as gentle with you. You really show a lack of maturity and control with your words.
 
Rassales said:
Yep...problems abound. Remember, the NT wasn't written in English, and the word "homosexual" did not exist in English until about 150 years ago. If you look at the actual word in Greek from that passage, you'll find it means a man who performs sex with other men, in a pagan temple, for the purpose of pagan worship. Not exactly the same as George and Steve, your neighbors down the street, with the cat and the Prius.
Click to expand...

If our friend knows so much about bibles he should know that not only does the word "homosexual" not appear in King James bible it also isn't in the 21st Century King James version. Hmmm, I wonder how it got in those other versions? Maybe God himself wrote it in there, ehh?
 
Reality Land said:
It is a life style that is contrary to the established accepted norm of today's majority. It is bad because it is fruitless. It is a self serving and selfish lifestyle. It gives nothing back to society in the way of the most precious thing there is; new human life. It is a consumption only lifestyle and to be honest, a royal pain in the neck. But I guess they at least contribute to the interior appearance of our homes and beauty of our women as home decorators and beauticians. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

1) Define normal.
2) Homosexuals can and do procreate.
3) Everything else you said is either your own unsubstantiated opinion or a stereotype, and therefore is irrelevant and demonstrates nothing but poor debating.




Oh I see. You are one of those types that thinks just because you say a person is wrong it is a fact. You garner your moral strength and perspective from the support you get from others who think as you do and believe the lies because you have told it to one another so many times. You are going to change the World no matter what the majority want.
Click to expand...

Oh, I see. You are one of those types who refuses to accept facts and evidence and instead relies on their own bigotry and false information to cling to, completely incapable of defending their position with substantiation. I've dealt with plenty like you before. You've got nothing.
 
Reality Land said:
I can only question your ability to understand the written English language when you read what I have said and think it is a hate speech. You are warning me for an infraction I did not commit? I see I may have made a mistake thinking that this forum was sincere in its claim to supporting intellectual debate. Seems the propaganda machine is rolling along nicely here...
Click to expand...

The only one spreading unintelligent propaganda is you. And if you comment on an official warning... which that was, publicly again, you will receive consequences. I hope that is clear enough for you.
 
ADK_Forever said:
Good come back. :doh
Click to expand...

You lied.

ADK_Forever said:
If they want to prevent gays & lesbians from getting married, simply because they are not heterosexual, then YES they are bigots. Period.
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with why I accused you of bigotry...

"I see all of this anti-gay rights as being based on fear. Fear of anything different than you. Fear of people thinking and behaving different than you. Just plain old fashioned, ignorant fear. Nothing personal. - ADK_Forever

Please stop with the fallacy.

I am not even going into the hypocrisy of the last statement. :lol:

ADK_Forever said:
This is why you are a bigot. It's ok for YOU to get married but, not that other group. THAT is discrimination. You can't split hairs and "allow" gays & lesbians to have "civil unions". THAT is not up to you. I get a kick out of people who claim to be a Christian and then do un-Christian things to other people.
Click to expand...

Your rant has again nothing to do with my comment. Again dodging the questions. Here is what I actually said that you are trying to ignore...

"Please point out where I said I am not a bigot? Everyone has their own bigotry including me. Please point out where I said homosexuals should not have the same rights? I think they should have all the rights of a married couple in a Civil Union, not a marraige.

You are way out of line here. - Blackdog

Sorry your deflection and dishonesty does not cut it.

ADK_Forever said:
If you believe in Christ, and follow his teachings, do you really think he would agree with you that "his children" who are homosexuals should be treated "any" different than you and your wife?
Click to expand...

Oh well I am sorry, I never new! I will give up the combined Christian wisdom of the last 3000 years and go with your teachings on the Bible. Your understanding is so much better than an actual Christin who studies the Bible. :roll:

ADK_Forever said:
What have I said about the bible that you think is incorrect?
Click to expand...

"spare the rod spoil the child" is interpreted as an excuse to beat children? - ADK_Forever

For starters. It is a comment on discipline, not beating children. :roll:

ADK_Forever said:
You call me a liar then say it was an ad hom. There's quite a difference between the two.
Click to expand...

Yes their is. To bad you do not know the difference.

Here was my answer to your question...

"No, it makes you look silly and boring. No insult intended, but you asked." - Blackdog

To which you responded with...

"Name calling? That tactic may work for other people who think in terms of narrow views but, it has no effect on people thinking of the bigger picture. - ADK Forever

Now first of all I did not call you a name nor did I imply anything even close. Lie #1. Then you followed up with even more statements that were nothing more than fallacy or out and out lies.

ADK_Forever said:
Are you not old enough to know the difference between the two? Should we be talking face to face and you falsely accused me of being a liar I may not be as gentle with you. You really show a lack of maturity and control with your words.
Click to expand...

Great another Internet tough guy. Making threats over the Internet.

I have not falsely accused you of anything. That my friend is a lie unto itself as I have shown.

Then you have the nerve to talk about maturity.

Then you wonder why people here laugh at you. :lol:
 
Rassales said:
You thought the New Testament was written in English?
Click to expand...

:roll:

Rassales said:
I know enough to tell that an ancient text can't be interpreted using language concepts that didn't exist when it was written, and that in order to understand any text, you need to consult the original language, not some word with a 150 year pedigree substituted in for a much more specific concept.
Click to expand...

Biblical scholers have been through this a million times don't you think? Do you think we don't know what our own Bible means?

Rassales said:
Rather than rail about my ignorance (which is as easy to do for an ignorant person as for a learned one), perhaps you could tell me by what dogma you get to pay close attention to one rule but completely ignore another just half-a-page away.
Click to expand...

That statement pretty much sums up again your lack of knowledge on the Bible or it's history.

Rassales said:
Not sure how that fits here. Was sex with prostitutes considered licit by religious authorities among the ancient Hebrews?
I'll leave that to religious authorities. They're good at it.
Click to expand...

OK we are done here. No use going on about your ignorance on things you know nothing about.
 
Reality Land said:
Now you have ventured into the extreme and created a fantasy World born out of your imagination about things that have nothing to do with the conversation. Try to focus.
We are not talking about tradition. We are talking about the decision of the majority in a democracy
Click to expand...

We live in a Constitutional Republic not aa all out democracy.
and natural law.
Click to expand...

Homosexuality occurs in nature the very definition of natural.
 
Blackdog said:
You lied.



This has nothing to do with why I accused you of bigotry...

"I see all of this anti-gay rights as being based on fear. Fear of anything different than you. Fear of people thinking and behaving different than you. Just plain old fashioned, ignorant fear. Nothing personal. - ADK_Forever

Please stop with the fallacy.

I am not even going into the hypocrisy of the last statement. :lol:
Click to expand...

Well, you might have to. There is nothing in that statement that is bigoted. Do you actually know what the word means?

Your rant has again nothing to do with my comment. Again dodging the questions. Here is what I actually said that you are trying to ignore...

"Please point out where I said I am not a bigot? Everyone has their own bigotry including me. Please point out where I said homosexuals should not have the same rights? I think they should have all the rights of a married couple in a Civil Union, not a marraige.

You are way out of line here. - Blackdog
Click to expand...

I already responded to this bigoted statement. All you're doing is admitting over and over that you are in fact... a bigot. Let me spell it out for you one last time. Webster defines bigot as: "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance". Sound familiar?

Oh well I am sorry, I never new! I will give up the combined Christian wisdom of the last 3000 years and go with your teachings on the Bible. Your understanding is so much better than an actual Christin who studies the Bible.
Click to expand...

I see you totally ignored Rassales' comment that the word "homosexual" was not even around until 150 years ago. So, I guess the bible you're looking at is pretty recent "re-interpretation" with a newer word added. THIS is the problem with taking the bible so literally. Original words and their meanings get slowly twisted and redefined.

"spare the rod spoil the child" is interpreted as an excuse to beat children? - ADK_Forever

For starters. It is a comment on discipline, not beating children.
Click to expand...

No kidding? Wow, I wonder... could that have been my point? :doh

Great another Internet tough guy. Making threats over the Internet.
Click to expand...

You will not find me threatening anyone in any of my posts. Go find one. I won't hold my breath. I was pointing out how easy you accuse someone "on the internet" of lying, an accusation some people take very seriously, very personally. My point was that only cowards make threats while hiding behind the skirts of the internet, as you have. I don't think people like you have the guts to make such foolish accusations in person. Such behavior seems to come easy to some people when they have been shown to be wrong. Seriously wrong.

Then you wonder why people here laugh at you.
Click to expand...

I do not worry about fools acting like fools.
 
winston53660 said:
We live in a Constitutional Republic not aa all out democracy.
Click to expand...

100% Correct.

winston53660 said:
Homosexuality occurs in nature the very definition of natural.
Click to expand...

The whole nature argument for either side is absurde.

In nature it does occur usually as a response to a lack of adult females. As soon as more females are introduced, it stops. This makes it no less natural.

On the other side we have "A natural law." It is also a natural law that many animals eat their own young. Using some kind of natural law argument is just silly. Humans do not base our laws on animals.
 
Blackdog said:
In nature it does occur usually as a response to a lack of adult females. As soon as more females are introduced, it stops. This makes it no less natural.
Click to expand...
That's completely incorrect. There are animals, like dolphins, who engage in same sex activities just because it ****ing feels good. Same with elephants. The male/male elephant bonds last forever, whereas the heterosexual encounters are superficial and fleeting. And both genders engage in same sex activities. We could go on and on.

Regardless, it happens in nature therefore it is by definition - natural.


On the other side we have "A natural law." It is also a natural law that many animals eat their own young. Using some kind of natural law argument is just silly. Humans do not base our laws on animals.
Click to expand...
If eating our children provided a vast benefit, then yes, we could use that argument. As it is, though, we use abortion for the same reasons that other animals eat their young. So really... kind of similar, no?
 
Hatuey said:
Why is it that you can be married in the eyes of whatever God you worship but if the government doesn't recognize it through it's bureaucracy, you're not recognized by society as being married? I think it is you who is being dishonest. Marriage is a purely sociological institution. The religious aspect is applied by some. Not all. I'm not religious. And I'm married to me. My wife is religious. And she is married. Are we less married than you were? No, we're not.
Click to expand...

Wtf are you going on about?

Seriously you're not making any sense at all.
 
ADK_Forever said:
Well, you might have to. There is nothing in that statement that is bigoted. Do you actually know what the word means?
Click to expand...

Yes their is. You can try and ignore it, but we both know the truth. ;)

ADK_Forever said:
I already responded to this bigoted statement.
Click to expand...

No you have not.

ADK_Forever said:
All you're doing is admitting over and over that you are in fact... a bigot. Let me spell it out for you one last time. Webster defines bigot as: "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance". Sound familiar?
Click to expand...

As soon as I start treating a racial or ethnic group differently, I will let you know.

This also has nothing to do with my question.

Keep dodging. :roll:

ADK_Forever said:
I see you totally ignored Rassales' comment that the word "homosexual" was not even around until 150 years ago.
Click to expand...

Because it is not worth responding to. Let me show you why...

Romans 1:26-27 "For this reason [idolatry] God gave them up to passions of dishonor; for even their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature, and likewise also the males, having left the natural use of the female, were inflamed by their lust for one another, males with males, committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error."

No use of the word arsenokoitēs which is the word he is referring to in Greek.

So his comments make no difference and the argument as a whole has been used by gay activist's for years. It has been debunked many times. I am not going to give him or you a Bible lesson on language.

ADK_Forever said:
So, I guess the bible you're looking at is pretty recent "re-interpretation" with a newer word added. THIS is the problem with taking the bible so literally. Original words and their meanings get slowly twisted and redefined.
Click to expand...

You have no idea how I take the Bible. You are not even a Christian and have less understanding of the principles set down than I do. Then you have the gual to act like you know it better? :lol:

ADK_Forever said:
No kidding? Wow, I wonder... could that have been my point? :doh
Click to expand...

You were making the statement to someone who already knows that some Christians take things the wrong way. So what?

ADK_Forever said:
You will not find me threatening anyone in any of my posts. Go find one. I won't hold my breath.
Click to expand...

"Should we be talking face to face and you falsely accused me of being a liar I may not be as gentle with you." - ADK_Forever

ADK_Forever said:
I was pointing out how easy you accuse someone "on the internet" of lying, an accusation some people take very seriously, very personally.
Click to expand...

Than stop lying about my comments and being dishonest. Then I will not call you a liar. Until that time you have lied and been dishonest.

You reap what you sow.

ADK_Forever said:
My point was that only cowards make threats while hiding behind the skirts of the internet, as you have.
Click to expand...

Please point out where I have made a threat against you?

ADK_Forever said:
I don't think people like you have the guts to make such foolish accusations in person. Such behavior seems to come easy to some people when they have been shown to be wrong. Seriously wrong.
Click to expand...

You have yet to show much of anything.

You lied, I have shown it to be true. You don't like it and then lie and say I somehow threatened you now? Another lie.

You really need to work on your honesty issues.

ADK_Forever said:
I do not worry about fools acting like fools.
Click to expand...

Obviously.
 
Blackdog said:
Biblical scholers have been through this a million times don't you think? Do you think we don't know what our own Bible means?
Click to expand...
And they disagree about things, as scholars tend to do. Imagining that "millions" of scholars all agree on everything shows a misunderstanding of scholarship. If you don't take into account the actual language of the original text and its historical context, then yes, I'd say misunderstanding is inevitable.
 
rivrrat said:
That's completely incorrect. There are animals, like dolphins, who engage in same sex activities just because it ****ing feels good. Same with elephants. The male/male elephant bonds last forever, whereas the heterosexual encounters are superficial and fleeting. And both genders engage in same sex activities. We could go on and on.

Regardless, it happens in nature therefore it is by definition - natural.
Click to expand...

Some do and no it does not go on and on, this does not make my statement wrong or nonfactual. Did you catch the last part? Or are you doing your typical knee jerk reaction?

rivrrat said:
If eating our children provided a vast benefit, then yes, we could use that argument. As it is, though, we use abortion for the same reasons that other animals eat their young. So really... kind of similar, no?
Click to expand...

No. :roll:

Not even close.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
Some do and no it does not go on and on, this does not make my statement wrong or nonfactual. Did you catch the last part? Or are you doing your typical knee jerk reaction?
:
Click to expand...

It just makes your statement a spin job. Some will stay gay, some will be bi, and some will be hetero.
 
winston53660 said:
It just makes your statement a spin job. Some will stay gay, some will be bi, and some will be hetero.
Click to expand...

Has nothing to do with spin. Did anyone bother to read the last part of my statement or are you all just ****ing morons who can't read?
 
Last edited:
Rassales said:
And they disagree about things, as scholars tend to do. Imagining that "millions" of scholars all agree on everything shows a misunderstanding of scholarship. If you don't take into account the actual language of the original text and its historical context, then yes, I'd say misunderstanding is inevitable.
Click to expand...

I would agree, but this has nothing to do with the OP or my argument at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom