Anti-gay marriage protesters... any on here?

[Minotaur]

Originally Posted by psamty

There will always be exceptions to every rule, but the institution of marriage is still the founding block of civil society.

Perhaps, and we are looking to contribute to that by forming additional families in our communities.

Kids with single parents are much more likely to be welfare brats than those brought up in a house with two parents and a stable, loving marriage.

Maybe because of welfare mothers. Otherwise I can only say your information is way off the mark.

[psamty]

Originally Posted by WilyCoder

Sorry, but I expected more from you psamty. I'm not even going to respond to that statement in detail.

Your argument is exactly the same thing said by bigots who didn't want black men marrying white women. "They can marry their own race like the rest of us can"

Not at all. You are making a strong assumption here. I am not stopping gay people from forming an equivalent partnership with a man, it should just have a separate name. Otherwise, the word marriage loses its meaning. We'll have to prefix the term, calling it homo-marriage or hetero-marriage. But whatever, do what you want. I don't care enough about it to fight it. This is PC at its worst....

[jake24]

Originally Posted by BTI

Where in the Bible does Jesus Christ say that gay marriage is wrong?

He never directly mentioned homosexuality and gay marriage, but he did affirm how God made them male and female in the begining and that man should leave his parents and clive to his wife, which is in better words stating marriage between a man and woman...He also mentioned Sodom and Gomorrah as well, meaning he agreed with that judgement...And the truth be told Jesus is the one who executed that judgement in the old testement Jesus was the angel of the Lord who met Abraham and told him of the judgement coming upon Sodom and Gommorah...Also the new testament also condems homosexuality as well.

[Minotaur]

It's a control issue. Gays are one of the last groups that society has control over, and wants to retain that control until its dying breath.

[BTI]

Originally Posted by jake24

He never directly mentioned homosexuality and gay marriage.

That's all you needed to write. Everything else is interpretation.

[WilyCoder]

Originally Posted by psamty

Not at all. You are making a strong assumption here. I am not stopping gay people from forming an equivalent partnership with a man, it should just have a separate name. Otherwise, the word marriage loses its meaning. We'll have to prefix the term, calling it homo-marriage or hetero-marriage. But whatever, do what you want. I don't care enough about it to fight it. This is PC at its worst....

All it would do is expand the meaning of the word 'marriage'.

You are adding to the meaning, not reducing the meaning.

[LordDarwin]

Originally Posted by jake24

He never directly mentioned homosexuality and gay marriage, but he did affirm how God made them male and female in the begining and that man should leave his parents and clive to his wife, which is in better words stating marriage between a man and woman...

So, basically... It doesn't.

You've just interpreted it to say that because it supports your homophobic viewpoint, which as you've already mentioned, is a view you even held, even before being "born again."

Originally Posted by jake24

Also the new testament also condems homosexuality as well.

Scripture please...

[AKR]

Originally Posted by psamty

It's not genocide. What AKR said is extreme, but the essence holds. There are too many mouths to feed and it is essential that people start practicing birth control, even in marriages. If the world population was down to about 2 billion, there would be plenty to go around. If the population gets to 10 billion, we'll all be at each others throats and a true genocide will ensue.

Originally Posted by psamty

This is a question all of us unmarried folk will have to face at some point. The world's population now stands at 6.80 billion.

The demands our race puts on this planet are too much to bear. We claim we want to make a better world for our children, but it is our non-stop production of children that is the greatest danger to the world. Yet, society mandates that marriage and starting a family is the only way to happiness and normalcy.

Personally, I am not an extremist who believes the human race should kill itself such as those in the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (http://www.vhemt.org/). However, I do believe we need to shrink our race to a manageable size, and do so voluntarily, not through force. I plan to have no more than one child, and adopt from then on. In my opinion, even having that one child is selfish, but it is a selfishness I am willing to commit.

Originally Posted by psamty

Agreed. Artificial fertility treatment is a goddamn joke. Please, if you can't have kids of your own, adopt some. Don't spend ****loads of money trying to put a child into your broken down body. If you are infertile, it's prolly coz your body can't deal with having a baby. So quit it sistren...

Just sayin'.

[Minotaur]

Originally Posted by jake24

He never directly mentioned homosexuality and gay marriage, but he did affirm how God made them male and female in the begining and that man should leave his parents and clive to his wife, which is in better words stating marriage between a man and woman...

If you actually knew your bible as well as you profess, you'd know that Jesus was addressing the question of divorce. And since there were no homosexual marriages, he couldn not have been referring to them. So he stated the obvious... that men and women marry. But omission is not exclusion.

He also mentioned Sodom and Gomorrah as well, meaning he agreed with that judgement...And the truth be told Jesus is the one who executed that judgement in the old testement Jesus was the angel of the Lord who met Abraham and told him of the judgement coming upon Sodom and Gommorah...Also the new testament also condems homosexuality as well.

Are you making this up as you are going along? Where does it say that Jesus was "the" angel? There were three angels. Who were the other two, Moe and Larry?

And btw, Jesus used Sodom and Gomorrah as an example because they were indeed wicked... by being inhospitable, uncharitable and greedy to strangers and their own poor. If the whole town was homosexual, how the **** did they make babies, and why would Lot offer his daughters? Was he that dense?

Psst... here's a hint... it's a fable about what happens to cruel and greedy people.

[jake24]

Originally Posted by BTI

That's all you needed to write. Everything else is interpretation.

Its not intepretation...Do you honestly believe Jesus would condone gay marriage?...By your own logic, Jesus never mentioned anything about rapist and child molesters does that mean he is for it because he didn't mention it, is that also up for intepretation?...Nope its really clear he is opposed to all of the above.

[JBDW]

Originally Posted by psamty

Not at all. You are making a strong assumption here. I am not stopping gay people from forming an equivalent partnership with a man, it should just have a separate name. Otherwise, the word marriage loses its meaning. We'll have to prefix the term, calling it homo-marriage or hetero-marriage. But whatever, do what you want. I don't care enough about it to fight it. This is PC at its worst....

Look, here's the problem I can tell with your logic. You're basically arguing against the idea of calling it 'marriage' because, as far as I can tell, you believe that it already has a definition: man and woman.

Now, I don't want to open a new can of worms, but how is this any different to interracial marriages? Someone like you in that era could have easily made the exact same argument: "Marriage already has a definition: man and woman of the same race."

The only thing different between your definition and theirs is that you expanded the definition to make it such that race is not a factor. Now the question is, why is it okay in your case to change the term 'marriage' as it was originally understood, and not in this case? Bit of a double-standard there, unless of course you believe that interracial couples should also have been given a 'separate but equal' version of marriage of their own.

[Minotaur]

Originally Posted by jake24

Its not intepretation...Do you honestly believe Jesus would condone gay marriage?...By your own logic, Jesus never mentioned anything about rapist and child molesters does that mean he is for it because he didn't mention it, is that also up for intepretation?...Nope its really clear he is opposed to all of the above.

More fail. It is a given that rape and child molestation are crimes of control and violence and violation. Jesus was against all those things. He was against anything that hurt or violated another person.

[AKR]

Jake, you ignored my Bible passages. I wonder why...

[jake24]

Originally Posted by LordDarwin

Scripture please...

They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-- who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 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. (NIV, Romans 1:25-27)
1 Timothy 1:8-10
8Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it legitimately. 9This means understanding that the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, 10fornicators, sodomites, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching

[WilyCoder]

Originally Posted by jake24

Do you honestly believe Jesus would condone gay marriage?

Jesus has 10,000 sayings about loving all of humanity. He has one saying (which has to be twisted) condemning gay marriage.

I don't know if you've ever taken a statistics class, but....

[BTI]

Originally Posted by jake24

Its not intepretation...Do you honestly believe Jesus would condone gay marriage?

Why not? When I think of Jesus I think of love and acceptance. He wouldn't shun gay people. He would embrace them.

(My interpretation of his words, of course. )

Originally Posted by jake24

By your own logic, Jesus never mentioned anything about rapist and child molesters does that mean he is for it because he didn't mention it, is that also up for intepretation?...Nope its really clear he is opposed to all of the above.

Jesus told his followers to love thy neighbor. Rapists and child molesters are not following this message. Gay people in a committed, loving relationship are following this message.

[Minotaur]

Originally Posted by jake24

They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-- who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts.

So God made them gay! Even Paul says it!

Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 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. (NIV, Romans 1:25-27)

In his writings, Paul was talking about temple prostitution, if anything. It was well-known that Corinth was a pagan city and a hotbed of sexual promiscuity. None of this had anything to do with two men or two women in love.

Furthermore, Paul used words and phrases that were oddball and hard to figure out even in the Greek of the day.

But I know this is falling on deaf ears. I just like writing it.

Not to mention, Paul is not Jesus. Do you follow Paul, or do you follow Jesus?

[jake24]

Originally Posted by Minotaur

And btw, Jesus used Sodom and Gomorrah as an example because they were indeed wicked... by being inhospitable, uncharitable and greedy to strangers and their own poor. If the whole town was homosexual, how the **** did they make babies, and why would Lot offer his daughters? Was he that dense?

Psst... here's a hint... it's a fable about what happens to cruel and greedy people.

Sodom and Gomorrah happened because they were uncharitiable, and greedy LOL... That the funniest description I have ever heard on that..Also yes Christianity does teach that before Christ incarnated into human flesh, he often appeared as the angel of the Lord, heres some scriptures.

The angel of the Lord speaks as God, identifies Himself with God, and exercises the responsibilities of God (Genesis 16:7-12; 21: 17-18; 22:11-18; Exodus 3:2; Judges 2:1-4; 5:23; 6:11-24; 13:3-22; 2 Samuel 24:16; Zechariah 1:12; 3:1; 12:8). In several of these appearances, those who saw the angel of the Lord feared for their lives because they had "seen the Lord." Therefore, it is clear that in at least some instances, the angel of the Lord is a theophany, an appearance of God in physical form.
The appearances of the angel of the Lord cease after the incarnation of Christ. Angels are mentioned numerous times in the New Testament, but ?the angel of the Lord? is never mentioned in the New Testament. It is possible that appearances of the angel of the Lord were manifestations of Jesus before His incarnation. Jesus declared Himself to be existent ?before Abraham? (John 8:58), so it is logical that He would be active and manifest in the world. Whatever the case, whether the angel of the Lord was a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ (Christophany) or an appearance of God the Father (theophany), it is highly likely that the phrase ?the angel of the Lord? usually identifies a physical appearance of God.

[Minotaur]

Originally Posted by BTI

He would embrace them.

No homo.

[jake24]

Originally Posted by WilyCoder

Jesus has 10,000 sayings about loving all of humanity. He has one saying (which has to be twisted) condemning gay marriage.

I don't know if you've ever taken a statistics class, but....

He indeed does have teachings of love for all of humanity, in fact he loved so much he died for all, but what subject did he talk about the most other than money?...He talked about hell, and the judgement of God for the wicked.

[AKR]

Originally Posted by jake24

He indeed does have teachings of love for all of humanity, in fact he loved so much he died for all, but what subject did he talk about the most other than money?...He talked about hell, and the judgement of God for the wicked.

When will you admit that your god commanded people to kill children?

[WilyCoder]

Originally Posted by jake24

He indeed does have teachings of love for all of humanity, in fact he loved so much he died for all, but what subject did he talk about the most other than money?...He talked about hell, and the judgement of God for the wicked.

based on statistics, eternal love and respect for all humans trumps what he said about marriage.

your decision to focus on one passage instead of the many, many others, shows your own bias of hatred.

in short, you're doing christianity wrong.

[WilyCoder]

Originally Posted by AKR

When will you admit that your god commanded people to kill children?

He's not. Its classic cherry picking of the bible on his part.

[jake24]

Originally Posted by BTI

Why not? When I think of Jesus I think of love and acceptance. He wouldn't shun gay people. He would embrace them.

(My interpretation of his words, of course. )



Jesus told his followers to love thy neighbor. Rapists and child molesters are not following this message. Gay people in a committed, loving relationship are following this message.

He would embrace them and love them, but he would also tell them what he told the woman caught in the act of adultry (Go and sin no more)..He also taught a message of repentace toward God for sinners and to put their trust in him to save them from hell.

[OatsandSteak]

I would assume two atheists getting married would be way worse than two gays getting married.

[LatsMakeTheMan]

Originally Posted by FITNESSKY

seems to me you dont know ur bible.....figures...

Moving on

Is that supposed to be an insult? LOL.....

[jake24]

Originally Posted by Minotaur

So God made them gay! Even Paul says it!



In his writings, Paul was talking about temple prostitution, if anything. It was well-known that Corinth was a pagan city and a hotbed of sexual promiscuity. None of this had anything to do with two men or two women in love.

Furthermore, Paul used words and phrases that were oddball and hard to figure out even in the Greek of the day.

But I know this is falling on deaf ears. I just like writing it.

Not to mention, Paul is not Jesus. Do you follow Paul, or do you follow Jesus?

He didn't make them gay but he will give them over to shameful lust as written...Paul the apostle by the inspiration of the holy spirit wrote the words of Jesus, we both follow Jesus... I know this is falling upon deaf ears but I also just like writing it...Also paul mention
the sin of homosexuality as clear as a bell.

[Minotaur]

Originally Posted by jake24

Sodom and Gomorrah happened because they were uncharitiable, and greedy LOL... That the funniest description I have ever heard on that..

Answer my question...

"If the whole town was homosexual, how the **** did they make babies, and why would Lot offer his daughters? Was he that dense?"

Also yes Christianity does teach that before Christ incarnated into human flesh, he often appeared as the angel of the Lord, heres some scriptures.

The angel of the Lord speaks as God, identifies Himself with God, and exercises the responsibilities of God (Genesis 16:7-12; 21: 17-18; 22:11-18; Exodus 3:2; Judges 2:1-4; 5:23; 6:11-24; 13:3-22; 2 Samuel 24:16; Zechariah 1:12; 3:1; 12:8). In several of these appearances, those who saw the angel of the Lord feared for their lives because they had "seen the Lord." Therefore, it is clear that in at least some instances, the angel of the Lord is a theophany, an appearance of God in physical form.

That doesn't mean it was Jesus. Could have been Krishna.

The appearances of the angel of the Lord cease after the incarnation of Christ. Angels are mentioned numerous times in the New Testament, but ?the angel of the Lord? is never mentioned in the New Testament. It is possible that appearances of the angel of the Lord were manifestations of Jesus before His incarnation. Jesus declared Himself to be existent ?before Abraham? (John 8:58), so it is logical that He would be active and manifest in the world. Whatever the case, whether the angel of the Lord was a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ (Christophany) or an appearance of God the Father (theophany), it is highly likely that the phrase ?the angel of the Lord? usually identifies a physical appearance of God.

"Angel" means "messenger", from Greek άνγγελος anggelos. "Angel of the Lord" means a messenger from God. Jesus was not an errand boy. You are inferring too much from the bible.

[AKR]

Originally Posted by WilyCoder

He's not. Its classic cherry picking of the bible on his part.

He cherry picks which posts to reply to just like he cherry picks which verses to acknowledge.

[Minotaur]

Originally Posted by AKR

When will you admit that your god commanded people to kill children?

When you can get tickets to 'Disney On Ice' in Hell.