Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

Goshin said:

WHO here does not let their personal beliefs, whatever those might be, guide their political positions to some degree? Redress, IT... have you EVER ONCE advocated that the government should not allow people do something? Then you've made a value judgement based on what you think is right, and have no grounds to bust on me for doing the same thing.

Click to expand...

yes in some cases personal beliefs do effect political one of course but in know quite a few people that arent for gay or gay live style but also realize in AMERICA they have no business telling two human consenting adults who they can or cant marry. They will still feel, teach, preach, and think its wrong but they arent arrogant and hypocritical enough to discriminate against their fellow americans. Most said they just wouldnt vote because they cant support it, which is fine and others even said they would vote yes because that freedom and that vote is more important to america.

Goshin said:

Redress, I AM extending the same courtesy to you. You are free to vote according to your conscience. I will do the same, and the outcome will be whatever it is.
I cannot stop you from voting your conscience. You cannot stop me from voting mine. Would you want to? Is it a free country if you tell me I can't vote according to my beliefs?

Click to expand...

But the thing is, voting based on religious beliefs will get you nowhere. The government is secular, and using a religious argument to oppose certain legislation won't hold up.

Some interesting statistics:


What do American families look like today?

Single Parents

* Single parents account for 27 percent of family households with children under 18. 1
* More than two million fathers are the primary caregivers of children under 18, a 62 percent increase since 1990. 2
* One in two children will live in a single-parent family at some point in childhood. 3
* One in three children is born to unmarried parents. 3
* Between 1978 and 1996, the number of babies born to unmarried women per year quadrupled from 500,000 to more than two million. 4
* The number of single mothers increased from three million to 10 million between 1970 and 2000. 1

Divorced Parents

* Nearly half of all marriages end in divorce. 1
* More than one million children have parents who separate or divorce each year. 5
* More than half of Americans today have been, are or will be in one or more stepfamily situations. 6

>snip< (I'm snipping out the sections on foster care and biracial families, because they are not pertinent to our discussion)

Gay-and Lesbian-Headed/Unmarried Partner Households

* Estimates show that approximately 2 million American children under the age of 18 are being raised by their lesbian and gay parents 11
* The number of unmarried partner households has increased by 72 percent in the last decade from three million in 1990 to more than five million in 2000. These figures include both same-sex and different-sex couples. 1
* One-third of lesbian households and one-fifth of gay male households have children. 1
* The Census Bureau reports that New York has 46,490 same-sex households, Ohio has 18,937 same-sex households and Missouri has 9,428 same-sex households. 13
* During the past decade, the number of same-sex households “grew significantly” in 10 states for which figures have been released: more than 700 percent in Delaware and Nevada; more than 400 percent in Vermont, Indiana, Louisiana and Nebraska; and more than 200 percent in Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts and Montana. 14



1 US Census Bureau of Household and Family Statistics, 2000
2 New York Times, May 20, 2001, Jane Fritsch
3 State of America’s Children Yearbook 2000, Children’s Defense Fund
4 National Survey of America’s Families
5 The National Commission on Children
6 Stepfamily Association of America
7 CRS Report for Congress: Foster Care and Adoption Statistics
8 US Census Bureau Press Release
9 U.S. Census 2000
10 US State Department
11 Interview 2007, Senior Research Fellow, The Williams Institute UCLA School of Law
12 Council on Contemporary Families
13 Human Rights Campaign Press Release
14 The Washington Post, June 20, 2001, D’Vera Cohn


Groundspark

Your Star said:

But the thing is, voting based on religious beliefs will get you nowhere. The government is secular, and using a religious argument to oppose certain legislation won't hold up.

Click to expand...

The government is secular yes. That doesn't mean the individual voters are, or that those they elect to represent them are, or that the beliefs of the majority are irrelevant.

The beliefs of the majority have always been relevant in law in a democratic state. Granted that a court might force a change in the law against the will of the majority, but it is supposed to be based on existing law/Constitution, which presumably has (or at least had, at one time), majority support.

Forced change that the majority opposes has always brought with it certain problems: civil unrest being a common one. Resentment againt the beneficiaries being another. You'd be better off to wait until you had majority support, if that happens.

Again... if you get SSM somehow, then you do. I won't slit my wrists over it. I just can't support it.

Centrist77 said:

false
like it has already been posted since we are talking about america and fair and equal rights and freedoms this doeant matter much even if it was true but lets talk about it. the majority have been male-female but the fact remains gay marriage was around like 2000 years ago

Click to expand...

First you say it is false. Then you say it does not matter. Then you repeat what he said as fact?

but it has remained male-female throughout history with hardly any significant exceptions. – Goshin

the majority have been male-female but the fact remains gay marriage was around like 2000 years ago – Centrist77

Please feel free to point out the difference. Please point out where he said it was not around 2000 years ago and what that has to do with his statement?

Centrist77 said:

3now things you said in other threads
you will still be just as free as you are RIGHT NOW to no support it, nobody is asking you to support it

Click to expand...

Yes, you are asking us to ignore it and just let it happen.

All evil needs to succeed it for good men to do nothing.

Centrist77 said:

also gay marriage wont change anything about marriage that is already effecting you besides that its already not holy per the law. Nothing NEW will change since theres marriages out there already that your religion doesnt see nor does it have to.

Click to expand...

Has no bearing on why we do not see it as viable.

At this point, I think the position of the theologically-conservative Christian has been explained as thoroughly as is possible, and further debate is unlikely to accomplish anything.


And, I have laundry to do, so, buh-bye. :mrgreen:

Blackdog said:

First you say it is false. Then you say it does not matter. Then you repeat what he said as fact?

but it has remained male-female throughout history with hardly any significant exceptions. – Goshin

the majority have been male-female but the fact remains gay marriage was around like 2000 years ago – Centrist77

Please feel free to point out the difference. Please point out where he said it was not around 2000 years ago and what that has to do with his statement?.

Click to expand...

easy, not sure what you dont get, he said it is male and female THAT IS NOT TRUE, the majority is but it is not always male and female, which part dont you get?
fact remains gay marriage has been around for a very long time so HISTORY wouldnt change and of course male female is the majority because hetero is the majority.
so there i pointed it out like you asked
history supports marriage HAS been between gay ALSO for a long time and that IS significant because its a fact that wont allow a true claim that it is male-female it has also been gay.

Blackdog said:

Yes, you are asking us to ignore it and just let it happen.

All evil needs to succeed it for good men to do nothing.

Click to expand...

really thats all that has to happen and that means you support it?
wow thats a HUGE stretch!
do you spend your days trying to stop everything that your religion says is wrong? if not you are already sinning according to your logic.

Im going to have premarital sex tonight everybody's who religion doesnt support this better try their best to stop me or you will be supporting my sin and therefore be a sinner yourself

also correct me if im wrong but if this is the way you feel I guess that means you also feel the hell with all people that dont think like you, the hell with the constitution, the hell with others rights because your religion is MORE important than AMERICA and everybody else in it who disagrees? or is it "just" on the gay issue and marriage, other things are ok? LMAO

Blackdog said:

Has no bearing on why we do not see it as viable.

Click to expand...

LMAO of course it does unless you want to ignore that there are probably a 1000 things that are legal or illegal that are not in line with your religion and you probably do nothing about it or dont cry that "its forcing" anything on you, it points to the heart of the issue, arrogance, hypocrisy and you want to discriminate

Goshin said:

At this point, I think the position of the theologically-conservative Christian has been explained as thoroughly as is possible, and further debate is unlikely to accomplish anything.


And, I have laundry to do, so, buh-bye. :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

I agree at the end of the day it seems that you are fine with discriminating against others and being hypocritical, it seems you would rather have all laws reflect your beliefs and others dont matter.

which by the way is your RIGHT "feel" this way, I just find it funny that its not acknowledge by you and others

Your Star said:

But the thing is, voting based on religious beliefs will get you nowhere. The government is secular, and using a religious argument to oppose certain legislation won't hold up.

Click to expand...

agreed because it will still be discrimitive and hypocritical

Goshin said:

The government is secular yes. That doesn't mean the individual voters are, or that those they elect to represent them are, or that the beliefs of the majority are irrelevant.

The beliefs of the majority have always been relevant in law in a democratic state. Granted that a court might force a change in the law against the will of the majority, but it is supposed to be based on existing law/Constitution, which presumably has (or at least had, at one time), majority support.

Forced change that the majority opposes has always brought with it certain problems: civil unrest being a common one. Resentment againt the beneficiaries being another. You'd be better off to wait until you had majority support, if that happens.

Again... if you get SSM somehow, then you do. I won't slit my wrists over it. I just can't support it.

Click to expand...

People can have their private beliefs, but when dealing with public matters, one must put their beliefs aside, and focus on making laws that are fair, and ensure equality for all. You don't have to accept SSM, but the state should. It doesn't matter if the majority are against it, do you think the majority of people in the south would have voted against Jim Crow laws if the Supreme Court hadn't made them unconstitutional? They wouldn't of, but we all know that was a great decision that the Supreme Court made. Did most people in the south think so? No, but that doesn't change the fact that it was a good decision to repeal Jim Crow.
And the civil unrest, and resentment is a weak argument, are we supposed to not let people have equal rights because some people may be upset about it? The time for equality, the time for justice is always, and forever now.

Goshin said:

A lot of people think otherwise, Blackdog and I among them. We consider marriage to be between a man and a woman and that gay marriage is a misnomer, like calling a tail a leg, and a change of an existing institution to accomodate a tiny minority whose lifestyle doesn't fit the defintion to start with.

Historically, marriage has been male-female and as much about family (the production and upbringing of children) as about couple-dom. This has been true for all of recorded history in almost every culture. Even cultures that were fully accepting of homosexual activity (ie certain ancient Greek city-states) normally reserved marriage to mean male-female and associated with reproduction. Reproduction is not a natural function of homosexual behavior. The very few exceptions in ancient history involved aristocrats who were powerful enough to flout social convention and bend the law.

So, from the perspective of those like me, SSM is an attempt, not to provide equal-access, but to alter the definition and function of a vital and fundamental institution in a way we consider unnecessary and unreasonable.

Now, let me ask you the same question: if "marriage" is just a name, why does it matter so much to YOU? Why not just accept "Civil unions" and gain all the legal benefits you say you want? Why is it so important to call it marriage?

Click to expand...

Historically, a lot of things were different. Women couldn't vote, homosexuals were prosecuted for their sexuality, people who weren't the same skin color of the majority were forced to use separate drinking fountains, people weren't allowed to marry or cohabitate with people of different color/race. As I've stated before, things change.

If, theoretically, marriage and civil unions became the same thing, except one refers to heterosexual couples and the other homosexual couples, it would still be discrimination. A better compromise, rather than have two different words for the same thing, is to have all civil marriages referred to as "civil unions". This would be fine to me, but utterly pointless in the scheme of things. People would still refer to themselves as "married", I'd almost guarantee it. I know I would. The government would have to pay an ungodly amount of money to change all that legal paperwork just to change the wording from "married" or "marriage" to civil union. (Not to mention, would the churches then fight to try to keep the terms "wedding" and "wedded"? If so, more changes to legal documents.) Although the wording might be changed, the meaning would still all be the same.

Your Star said:

People can have their private beliefs, but when dealing with public matters, one must put their beliefs aside, and focus on making laws that are fair, and ensure equality for all. You don't have to accept SSM, but the state should. It doesn't matter if the majority are against it, do you think the majority of people in the south would have voted against Jim Crow laws if the Supreme Court hadn't made them unconstitutional? They wouldn't of, but we all know that was a great decision that the Supreme Court made. Did most people in the south think so? No, but that doesn't change the fact that it was a good decision to repeal Jim Crow.
And the civil unrest, and resentment is a weak argument, are we supposed to not let people have equal rights because some people may be upset about it? The time for equality, the time for justice is always, and forever now.

Click to expand...

And I think history show us that even when dealing with things that seem supported by the majority, such as anti-miscegenation laws, even if they are forced to change, there is very little actual civil unrest from the decision. Generally speaking, those who were fighting so hard against the change will just accept it grumbling when it happens and move on.

Goshin said:

Redress, the traditions of marriage have been modified, yes... but it has remained male-female throughout history with hardly any significant exceptions.

Explaining why I consider this significant would take pages and pages of dissertations on how societal traditions tend to result from survival-oriented needs, and how changing them drastically should be done only at need and with great caution and consideration. I don't feel like typing several pages worth of arguments on this topic, so let's just sum up:

It matters to me.
It doesn't matter to you.
Therefore you and I need not bother to argue about it.

Click to expand...

Sorry for the delay, I was busy blowing **** up in a game. The game is rated "M", and is one that some religious people would like to see banned. Thankfully(since the game is a blast...Borderlands, highly recommended), we do not make laws based on religious beliefs.

Just because something was done a certain way once does not make it the best way. We no longer live in a situation where lifespans are so short, wars and disease so prevalent, that every possible person who can reproduce should. If the gay people in this world marry, it will not lead to depopulation. That was the primary reason for encouraging male/female marriage. The world changes. We change traditions every week.

All those gay couples got children either through the intervention of a third party or through adoption. Gay coupledom has no functionality in reproduction.

Click to expand...

False. Many are from previous heterosexual relations. Further, the stability in a relationship through marriage is a plus for those children. You do not want to argue on the topic of gays and kids, I have lived it, I know it.

You also have to keep up with technology. A gay woman who wants a kid can conceive quite easily with today's technology. It's a tad more complex for gay men, but there are still options, including adoption and fostering, which benefit society. Arguing against GM based on family, reproduction and children is a pure loser. As I have shown, gays do have kids, can have kids, and it is beneficial for those children to have a stable family.

Redress, I AM extending the same courtesy to you. You are free to vote according to your conscience. I will do the same, and the outcome will be whatever it is.
I cannot stop you from voting your conscience. You cannot stop me from voting mine. Would you want to? Is it a free country if you tell me I can't vote according to my beliefs?

What is your purpose in this post? If it is to persuade me to change my mind, it didn't even come close. Nor is it likely to persuade Blackdog, or other theologically-conservative Christians to change their mind and support SSM. We are not allowed to. We are, in point of fact and within the context of our beliefs, forbidden to do so.

Do you want me to seperate my religious convictions from my political position? I've already told you why that isn't likely to happen. I have to live with my conscience and be able to sleep at night.

I may sympathize with the desire of gay persons to have access to the same kinds of benefits and status as married couples. My sympathy is irrelevant; I am forbidden to support them in that issue, on pain of the displeasure of my God. A willingness to compromise in the matter of Civil Unions is as far as I can go in that direction, and frankly that itself is pushing the envelope. Some of my co-religionists would give me a hard time about that, if they knew.

If it happens it happens. I can't support it.

Click to expand...

The purpose of any debate is to persuade. I may not persuade you, but I may persuade some one reading this thread. I am showing why your religious beliefs are irrelevant to the law, why using children as an argument actually hurts your case, and why crying for tradition is a failed argument.

Matter of perspective. I believe marriage is a holy institution, whether the individuals entering into it acknowlege that or not. The government can pass a law saying "marriage is NOT a holy institution" and that will not change my belief that it IS.

I already know that you disagree with me. What more is there to say?

Click to expand...

The extra baggage you place on the word marriage is irrelevant to what the law says it is.

Goshin said:

The government is secular yes. That doesn't mean the individual voters are, or that those they elect to represent them are, or that the beliefs of the majority are irrelevant.

The beliefs of the majority have always been relevant in law in a democratic state. Granted that a court might force a change in the law against the will of the majority, but it is supposed to be based on existing law/Constitution, which presumably has (or at least had, at one time), majority support.

Forced change that the majority opposes has always brought with it certain problems: civil unrest being a common one. Resentment againt the beneficiaries being another. You'd be better off to wait until you had majority support, if that happens.

Again... if you get SSM somehow, then you do. I won't slit my wrists over it. I just can't support it.

Click to expand...

As we are seeing in various places in this country, legality is an important aspect of this discussion. The courts have, are now, or will soon decide this issue in a number of states.

Goshin said:

Who said I actively campaign against it? I said I can't support it, and have tried to explain why. In response I've been told I wish to impose my religion on others, that I think my personal religion should dictate government policy.

I'll say it once more: if you get it passed, then you just do. It will have to be without my support for reasons I've already explained.

As for divorce and adultery, I'm against those too, other than certain limited exceptions for divorce.

WHO here does not let their personal beliefs, whatever those might be, guide their political positions to some degree? Redress, IT... have you EVER ONCE advocated that the government should not allow people do something? Then you've made a value judgement based on what you think is right, and have no grounds to bust on me for doing the same thing.

Click to expand...

If I advocated something like this it would be because it infringes on the right of another person.

Centrist77 said:

easy, not sure what you dont get, he said it is male and female THAT IS NOT TRUE, the majority is but it is not always male and female, which part dont you get?

Click to expand...

He said “but it has remained male-female throughout history with hardly any significant exceptions.

He did not say “he said it is male and female” exclusively as you erroneously are trying to imply.

Centrist77 said:

fact remains gay marriage has been around for a very long time so HISTORY wouldnt change and of course male female is the majority because hetero is the majority.

Click to expand...

He never implied anything about it not being around. He said just like you “HISTORY wouldnt change and of course male female is the majority because hetero is the majority.”

Again no difference other than you throwing in some unrelated thing about the time line.

Centrist77 said:

so there i pointed it out like you asked
history supports marriage HAS been between gay ALSO for a long time and that IS significant because its a fact that wont allow a true claim that it is male-female it has also been gay.

Click to expand...

Which still has nothing even remotely related to what he said?

Intellectual dishonesty is a cop out.

Centrist77 said:

really thats all that has to happen and that means you support it?
wow thats a HUGE stretch!
do you spend your days trying to stop everything that your religion says is wrong? if not you are already sinning according to your logic.

Click to expand...

No I don’t and that is not a sin because I cannot be everyplace and know everything. I know my own religion and faith better than you, but thanks just the same.

Nice fallacy argument though.

Centrist77 said:

Im going to have premarital sex tonight everybody's who religion doesnt support this better try their best to stop me or you will be supporting my sin and therefore be a sinner yourself

Click to expand...

Are you going to offer up a point or continue this rant?

Centrist77 said:

also correct me if im wrong but if this is the way you feel I guess that means you also feel the hell with all people that dont think like you, the hell with the constitution, the hell with others rights because your religion is MORE important than AMERICA and everybody else in it who disagrees? or is it "just" on the gay issue and marriage, other things are ok? LMAO

Click to expand...

Ad-hom, great.

Centrist77 said:

LMAO of course it does unless you want to ignore that there are probably a 1000 things that are legal or illegal that are not in line with your religion and you probably do nothing about it or dont cry that "its forcing" anything on you, it points to the heart of the issue, arrogance, hypocrisy and you want to discriminate

Click to expand...

We fight against those as well. It is just not major news. So no, no hypocrisy here.

independent_thinker2002 said:

Now if this is not the case, you would support the government calling all marriages "civil unions".

Click to expand...

Oddly enough, I thought that is what we were discussing until recently.

I personally support changing the name of all legal marriages to “civil unions” or something, the purpose of which is to completely separate the secular and religious parts of marriage.

Redress said:

Sorry for the delay, I was busy blowing **** up in a game. The game is rated "M", and is one that some religious people would like to see banned. Thankfully(since the game is a blast...Borderlands, highly recommended), we do not make laws based on religious beliefs.

Click to expand...

I second that, Borderlands is epic.

It doesn't matter if marriage has mostly remained male-female throughout history. As others have pointed out, simply maintaining the status quo is not a legitimate reason to ban same-sex marriage, just as maintaining the status quo was not a legitimate reason to ban interracial marriage. People who argued against interracial marriage could have stated (and they would have been correct) that "marriage has mostly remained between people of the same race throughout history." That might be true, but it's not a compelling reason for the state to ban interracial marriage. The interracial marriage debate is a very apt analogy, especially since people used the same types of arguments (it's not natural, it's sinful, etc.) to argue against it. Heck, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled against interracial marriage saying:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

Click to expand...

People misinterpreted God's word then, and the same thing is happening now in my opinion. People opposed interracial marriage because they thought it was sinful, harming children, unnatural, etc. It's the exact same arguments that are being used now. And they have already been proven false.

Blackdog said:

He said “but it has remained male-female throughout history with hardly any significant exceptions.

He did not say “he said it is male and female” exclusively as you erroneously are trying to imply..

Click to expand...

if he isnt "implying" that then his statement is MEANINGLESS because otherwise his statement is FOR gay marriage not against it because he statement would then read like this, "you can't change history which is mostly straight marriage to now making it <big pause> mostly straight marriage" lol nothing changes if thats what he mean

if im wrong, then so be it but if you are right his statement is meaningless because allowing gay marriage would NOT change history

Blackdog said:

He never implied anything about it not being around. He said just like you “HISTORY wouldnt change and of course male female is the majority because hetero is the majority.”

Again no difference other than you throwing in some unrelated thing about the time line.

Click to expand...

then we agree his statement is meaningless to the debate and has no bearing, thanks

Blackdog said:

Which still has nothing even remotely related to what he said?

Intellectual dishonesty is a cop out.

Click to expand...

says you but like i said if my interpretation of what he was saying is right, then his argument is meaningless
if yours is right, his argument is still meaningless
so either way, its meaningless, which it is

Blackdog said:

No I don;t and that is not a sin because I cannot be everyplace and know everything. I know my own religion and faith better than you, but thanks just the same.

Nice fallacy argument though.

Click to expand...

no fallacy at all you claim that by not doing anything you support it and im willing to bet that there are things you know about you do nothing about

Blackdog said:

Are you going to offer up a point or continue this rant?

Click to expand...

no matter how much you want it to be its not a rant, the point is you better try and stop me or you are showing support, you may not believe my example to be sin but my point is clear there are many people that do nothing and in america they shouldnt

Blackdog said:

Ad-hom, great.

Click to expand...

does that mean you cant answer or im more right than you want to admit? LMAO
I said correct me if im wrong so do so if i am? I didnt say you feel this way for sure im asking since it would "seem" true with your logic and reasoning

see how that works, its more civil and intelligent than just assuming and proclaiming how someone else feels even if they tell you different like you have done in previous threads

Blackdog said:

We fight against those as well. It is just not major news. So no, no hypocrisy here.

Click to expand...

oh its clear hypocrisy and discriminative whether you chose to see it or not, those two facts wont change

The Mark said:

I personally support changing the name of all legal marriages to “civil unions” or something, the purpose of which is to completely separate the secular and religious parts of marriage.

Click to expand...

It's so completely unnecessary to create a paperwork nightmare simply because some religious people aren't able to understand the clear difference between the secular and religious parts and definitions of marriage. They are already separate. Clinging to semantic arguments and pretending that they aren't separate doesn't change that reality.

sweEt Mauritius said:

People misinterpreted God's word then, and the same thing is happening now in my opinion. People opposed interracial marriage because they thought it was sinful, harming children, unnatural, etc. It's the exact same arguments that are being used now. And they have already been proven false.

Click to expand...

I would appreciate if you would point out the misinterpitation here:

Romans 1:25-28

25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.

I Corinthians 6:9-10

9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

This is all NT so it applies specifically to the Christian denominations. Looks pretty clear cut to me.

sweEt Mauritius said:

People opposed interracial marriage because they thought it was sinful, harming children, unnatural, etc. It's the exact same arguments that are being used now. And they have already been proven false.

Click to expand...

nothing more than this really needs said
99% of the so called arguments were the same used against women, minorities, disabled, interracial marriage etc. They had no value, were arrogant, hypocritical, discrimitive and shallow then and that still reamins true today.

sweEt Mauritius said:

It's so completely unnecessary to create a paperwork nightmare simply because some religious people aren't able to understand the clear difference between the secular and religious parts and definitions of marriage. They are already separate. Clinging to semantic arguments and pretending that they aren't separate doesn't change that reality.

Click to expand...

agreed not to mention gays can still claim discrimination and rightfully so, while id support what ever made it easy for people not to be discriminated against by bigots, oppressors and others changing the name is still easily argued has discrimination.

Blackdog said:

I would appreciate if you would point out the misinterpitation here:

Romans 1:25-28

25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.

I Corinthians 6:9-10

9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

This is all NT so it applies specifically to the Christian denominations. Looks pretty clear cut to me.

Click to expand...

First of all, what Bible is that? Because the term "homosexual" did not appear in print until the 1869. So right there is an example of human interpretation, and I'd love to know what the actual words were in place of "homosexual offenders" prior to 1869.

And here's a great link written by a Biblical scholar on homosexuality and the Bible : What the Bible Says - And Doesn't Say - About Homosexuality

In general, people DID misinterpret the Bible. Because somehow the Virginia Supreme Court interpreted that it was God's will to prevent interracial marriage. It's quite obvious that they misinterpreted God's word.

Centrist77 said:

if he isnt "implying" that then his statement is MEANINGLESS because otherwise his statement is FOR gay marriage not against it because he statement would then read like this, "you can't change history which is mostly straight marriage to now making it <big pause> mostly straight marriage" lol nothing changes if thats what he mean

Click to expand...

I challenge anyone to make sense of that statement.

Centrist77 said:

if im wrong, then so be it but if you are right his statement is meaningless because allowing gay marriage would NOT change history

Click to expand...

Yes you were wrong. And you have still missed his point utterly.

Centrist77 said:

then we agree his statement is meaningless to the debate and has no barring, thanks

Click to expand...

I said nothing of the kind, you did in error.

Centrist77 said:

says you but like i said if my interpretation of what he was saying is right, then his argument is meaningless
if yours is right, his argument is still meaningless
so either way, its meaningless, which it is

Click to expand...

What? You are just repeating the same thing again, already responded to this above.

Centrist77 said:

no fallacy at all you claim that by not doing anything you support it and im willing to bet that there are things you know about you do nothing about

Click to expand...

You can bet, and you would loose. If I know about it, I speak out about it a refuse to let it just go on if I can.

You don’t know me. You know very little about me. Please don’t try and guess who I am or what I am about. I know my own mind better than you.

Centrist77 said:

no matter how much you want it to be its not a rant, the point is you better try and stop me or you are showing support, you may not believe my example to be sin but my point is clear there are many people that do nothing and in america they shouldn’t

Click to expand...

Just by posting here I am stopping you. Even if just one person reads my words and agrees, well guess what?

Makes your statement no less a silly nonsensical rant.

Centrist77 said:

does that mean you cant answer or im more right than you want to admit? LMAO
I said correct me if im wrong so do so if i am? I didnt say you feel this way for sure im asking since it would "seem" true with your logic and reasoning

see how that works, its more civil and intelligent than just assuming and proclaiming how someone else feels even if they tell you different like you have done in previous threads

Click to expand...

If you do not offer respect, why should I offer it to you? It is a two way street and by the rules of debate, you have already lost by disrespecting me. Ad-homs are not acceptable.

You in all cases have started with the name calling. You have gotten warnings in this thread, I have not. What does this tell you?

Centrist77 said:

oh its clear hypocrisy and discriminative whether you chose to see it or not, those two facts wont change

Click to expand...

You are free to think what you like, it does not make it the truth or reality in any way.

Actually I don’t even know why I responded, I knew this is about what would happen.

So you have a good one.