# Thread: Gay Marriage

1. ## Gay Marriage

Hey All,

Out here in California we have Proposition 8 being that a yes vote will ammend the cons***ution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Do gay folks have a secular right to a state marriage vs a marriage "in the eyes of God" meaning the church?

MacG

2. Originally Posted by MacG
Out here in California we have Proposition 8 being that a yes vote will ammend the cons***ution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Do gay folks have a secular right to a state marriage vs a marriage "in the eyes of God" meaning the church?
Hello MacG,

I think people sees ****sexuality as a temporary modern phenomenon. However, there was gays during all the humankind history. That also transcends the ethnicities, the cultures, and the earth geography. At the antipodes of the planet you will always find gay people.

They could be surprised to know that people in the history that they highly respect, were also ****sexuals (ex: Michelangelo, Richard the Lionheart, etc).

This is something we should live with. Because that is something that will never disappear in this present world. However, the Church can not have bonds with all the secular laws. The only danger is to see the state imposing his own standards to the Church. In this circumstance we will have no other choice that to chose the civil disobedience as a weapon.

"First, to map the boundaries within which all discussion must go on, I take it for certain that the physical satisfaction of ****sexual desires is sin. This leaves the ****, no worse off than any normal person who is, for whatever reason, preventing from marrying. Second, our speculations on the cause of the abnormality are not what matters and we must be content with ignorance. The disciples were not told why (in terms of efficient cause) the man was born blind (Jean 9:1-3): only the final cause, that the works of God shd. be manifest in him. This suggests that in homsexuality, as in every other tribulation, those works can be made manifest: i. e. that every disability conceals a vocation, if only we can find it, wh. will "turn the necessity to glorious gain." Of course, the first step must be to accept any privation wh., if so disabled, we can't lawfully get. The ****. has to accept sexual abstinence just as the poor man has to forego otherwise lawful pleasures because he wd. be unjust to his wife and children if he took them. That is merely a negative conditon. What shd. the positive life of the ****. be? I wish I had a letter wh. a pious male ****., now dead, once wrote me--but of course it was the sort of letter one takes care to destroy. He beleived that his necessiity could be turned to spiritual gain: that there were certain social role which mere men and mere women cd. not give. But it is all horribly vague--to long ago. Perhaps any ****. who humbly accepts his cross and puts himself under Divine guidance will, however, be shown the way. I am sure that any attempt to evade it (e.g. by mock-or quasi-marriage with a member of one's own sex even if this does not lead to any carnal act) is the wrong way... All I have really said is that, like all other tribulations, it must be offered to God and His guidance how to use it must be sought."

C.S. Lewis
A Severe Mercy,
Letter to Sheldon,
Vanauken (14 May 1954),
chap. 6, pp. 147-148
In brief, I believe like a citizen and a taxes contributor that gays should have all the same rights and benefits than us. However, in the Church, without abstinence, we can not be in communion with them.

At least, even if we diverge with them, we should never segregate them and be disrespectful.

Trinity

3. If the Lord does not accept gay marriage, I don't think we should as well.

4. Do gay folks have a secular right to a state marriage vs a marriage "in the eyes of God" meaning the church?
I believe they do, yes. I know that's an unpopular opinion in Christian circles, but I believe it's wrong to amend our cons***ution to exclude the rights of minority groups.

5. Originally Posted by Libby
I believe they do, yes. I know that's an unpopular opinion in Christian circles, but I believe it's wrong to amend our cons***ution to exclude the rights of minority groups.
So you're saying you support this, then?

If our Lord defined what marriage was, why can't we abide by it?

"And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." - Matthew 19:4-6

Jesus quoted Genesis when he said that.

"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." - Genesis 2:24

So if the Lord Jesus Christ only considered marriage valid for a male and a female, who are we to say otherwise?

6. "****sexual Folks" have a "Secular right" to do anything the laws of the state they live in SAY they can do - so no big deal there one way or another - it's only the civil law.

AND they can CALL what they do "Civil union", Marriage", "limited Corporation" or any other term as defined by the terms of the laws governing the practice wherever they are. Government can do any thing they can get consensus for.

"Marriage", Biblically however, is the "joining of flesh" - not really the charming (And ex$pen$ive) ceremony in the church, nor the party afterward.

What folks do at "Weddings" is essentially the execution of a legal contract defining responsibilities, ownership of physical property, and tax conditions between to consenting adults in the presence of witnesses as required by law - with some preaching and prayer added to make it a "Religious service".

And then the couple gets in a private setting and "Consummate the marriage" at which point it actually exists. Actually in most cases they get to the "wedding" already "Married" and probably in adultery because of previous more casual "marriages" these days.

"****sexual folks" of either gender, of course, can't "Join Flesh" in the Biblical sense, since the parts just won't fit together. Consequently a "Biblical marriage" between anything OTHER THAN a male and a female is a simple impossibility.

7. Good post, Bob.

8. The united church of christ and the luthern church are two churches that I know of that perform same sex unions. This issue is spreading out of the mainstream and into the pulpits.

9. Originally Posted by tealblue
The united church of christ and the luthern church are two churches that I know of that perform same sex unions. This issue is spreading out of the mainstream and into the pulpits.
Do you know which Lutheran Church performs same sex unions? Are you aware that some Methodist Churches condone ****sexuality? Few years ago, I went to a Methodist church that allows such practice due to the pastor making allowance for the behavior. The state that I live in is redefining the term, marriage, in the upcoming proposition. So, why is God against the practice of ****sexuality? Please do not say, the Bible said so.

TruthSeeker

10. Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
Do you know which Lutheran Church performs same sex unions? Are you aware that some Methodist Churches condone ****sexuality? Few years ago, I went to a Methodist church that allows such practice due to the pastor making allowance for the behavior. The state that I live in is redefining the term, marriage, in the upcoming proposition. So, why is God against the practice of ****sexuality? Please do not say, the Bible said so.

TruthSeeker
I read the luthern church in switzerland performs same sex unions. God is against ****sexuality because its disordered and doesn't coinside with Gods plan of life.

11. ## I've been thinking your way...

Originally Posted by Bob Carabbio
"****sexual Folks" have a "Secular right" to do anything the laws of the state they live in SAY they can do - so no big deal there one way or another - it's only the civil law.

AND they can CALL what they do "Civil union", Marriage", "limited Corporation" or any other term as defined by the terms of the laws governing the practice wherever they are. Government can do any thing they can get consensus for.

"Marriage", Biblically however, is the "joining of flesh" - not really the charming (And ex$pen$ive) ceremony in the church, nor the party afterward.

What folks do at "Weddings" is essentially the execution of a legal contract defining responsibilities, ownership of physical property, and tax conditions between to consenting adults in the presence of witnesses as required by law - with some preaching and prayer added to make it a "Religious service".

And then the couple gets in a private setting and "Consummate the marriage" at which point it actually exists. Actually in most cases they get to the "wedding" already "Married" and probably in adultery because of previous more casual "marriages" these days.

"****sexual folks" of either gender, of course, can't "Join Flesh" in the Biblical sense, since the parts just won't fit together. Consequently a "Biblical marriage" between anything OTHER THAN a male and a female is a simple impossibility.
...specifically the bible says that God puts into place the governing powers. This was easer when the powers were not voted in Where I am torn a bit is that we are being asked to vote to amend our cons***ution to define marriage as thus "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The Attorney General has ***led it in the ballot "ELININATES THE RIGHT OF SAME SEX COUPLES TO MARRY".
Do we have the right to eliminate a right? What if it was reversed? What is they said that they agreed with Frued the religion i the opiate f the people and that therefore those religious christians cannot marry each other because they are not rational but stoned by pie in the sky delusions.

MacG

12. Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
Do you know which Lutheran Church performs same sex unions? Are you aware that some Methodist Churches condone ****sexuality? Few years ago, I went to a Methodist church that allows such practice due to the pastor making allowance for the behavior. The state that I live in is redefining the term, marriage, in the upcoming proposition. So, why is God against the practice of ****sexuality? Please do not say, the Bible said so.

TruthSeeker
So you want us to tell you why God is against the practice, but then turn around and tell us that we can't tell you what he has said about it?

What I'm about to say may offend some, so please don't take it personal. Here goes. Any church that blesses what God has cursed, is of the devil and is falling into apostasy. To those that are in this said churches, flee from the corruption before it gets to you!

13. The Biblical PROBLEM with ****sexuality appears to be centered around the "typology" of sexual reproduction.

Essentially the nature of the relationship between Jesus and the Church is stated in sexual terms, and concepts like "insemination" and "Conception", and reproduction/birth are wrapped up in that. The "Song of Solomon" is seen as a picture of the relationship between Jesus and his bride (us) - and it's intensely sexual in nature.

****sexuality, of course, is a total denial of the "original intention" of God - i.e. One man, and ONE woman - becoming ONE through the joining of flesh.

In the same sense, the "PLAN" is that the Church and Jesus will "Become one" by a "Joining of Spirit".

14. ## This and that-

"specifically the bible says that God puts into place the governing powers. This was easier when the powers were not voted in "

Actually I don't see "Voting" as a complication. The bible says that the "toss of the dice" is in God's hands (The urim and thummim were "sanctified dice"). Hanging chad isn't THAT much of a stretch!!

"The Attorney General has ***led it in the ballot "ELIMINATES THE RIGHT OF SAME SEX COUPLES TO MARRY".
Do we have the right to eliminate a right? What if it was reversed?"

The government has the "right" to do any stupid thing it wants, as detailed in the interpretations du jour of the State and Federal cons***utions. Same sex couples CAN'T "Marry" in the absolute sense, so in actuality the whole issue is moot regardless of what senseless laws the government cobbles together.

HOWEVER I see NO REASON why a "same sex" couple shouldn't be permitted by law to the same contractual financial, tax, signing, and social rights as a Heterosexual couple, and be bound to the same legal considerations in the dissolution of that contract, should that occur.

There are ALL KINDS of "corporations" out there. Legally, "marriage" is only just another one of 'em, and a "Civil union" can have any contractual stipulations the lawmakers want to tack onto it. The "law" isn't "moral" or "Immoral" - it's A-moral. IF it p***es the cons***utional challenges (making any number of lawyers rich in the process) but is reversed later - then existing "unions" would probably be "grandfathered" and there'd just be no new ones.

CALLING it a "marriage" in one respect isn't important - because it WON'T BE ONE regardless of the "Legal name" given it. If you name your son "Ford" - that doesn't make him a car.

What is they said that they agreed with Freud that religion is the opiate of the people and that therefore those religious Christians cannot marry each other because they are not rational but stoned by pie in the sky delusions.

Oh well - the time IS coming when "Christianity" WILL BE CONSIDERED a symptom of insanity.

15. Originally Posted by MacG
Hey All,

Out here in California we have Proposition 8 being that a yes vote will ammend the cons***ution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Do gay folks have a secular right to a state marriage vs a marriage "in the eyes of God" meaning the church?

MacG
The votes in California are in. And the count continues. Prop 8 has a 450,000 vote lead thus far. And if this proposition p***es, California (and in my estimation America)has dodged a mine field.

Marriage is the first government of man, preceding any form of ancient regional or national government. The former was commissioned by God. The latter was formed by man. So when marriage becomes a mockery or is made to be a mockery, it is God who is being mocked by man.

The reason it has been allowed by God for America to have to fight for the sanc***y of marriage is because heterosexuals have been making a mockery of marriage for at least the last 50 years in America. And at least half of those heterosexuals who have been doing so have been Christians. Look at the divorce statistics. Divorce rates are virtually the same for the "churched" as the "unchurched." And at times, it has even been higher for the "churched." That is not only a shame it is a testimony to the sad state of affairs in the Church... a testimony that causes the "unchurched" to further mock God.

I am among those who felt the need to reach out to the unchurched by appearing less churched to them. The Apostle Paul spoke of precisely this in:

1 Corinthians 9:21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law.

But we must be careful, we must be very careful in our efforts to remove the sanctimonious rebuff unbelievers sometimes feel around believers... not to forget the middle portion of that same verse. At times I have... to my shame. Because to do so is to devalue the Gospel, to make Christianity appear to be just another religious choice among the rest. To make it seem like the cause of Christ is worth little since we haven't even bothered to change our lives to accommodate him... how could that apparent insincerity appeal to a possible convert?

And this (in my estimation) is how the Church has been forced into the closet the past 50 years. We tried to seem as worldly as the next guy... then we became as worldly as the next guy. And the humanists began pushing on issues we were hard-pressed to oppose (given our worldliness and lack of moral capital)... like open ****sexuality... ****sexuality in the military... ****sexuality in the schools... ****sexuality in marriage.

At each juncture the Church (that's us) failed to oppose the red ribbon tide... because we have been too much like them. This is why the Bible warns against worldliness and sex sin. Any deviation from God's commands are a perversion of them... and we who are deviant in heterosexual sin are on the same road as those who are ****sexual (they are just further along the same road). And since we have the truth... the Bible... the Spirit of God living in us... and therefore a reason not to have any deviousness (and the unbeliever knows none of these reasons to show any restraint)... it is we who have the greater sin... we who have the log in our eye who so often point the finger of accusation at those who have but a speck in their eye.

We in the Church have dodged a mine field if Prop 8 p***es. But this is not a time to sigh with relief and then return to our life styles that got us in this predicament... it is time to repent! It is time to pray and seek God's face! It is a time to get our own house in order so that we can oppose the crimson tide of evil.

Judgment must begin in the house of God (1 Peter 4:17).

Look at the evidence of how we have mocked God and have made a mockery of him to the unsaved...

For Heaven's sake... Repent!

16. Amen John, amen.

Just because a person is under grace does NOT give them free reign to sin and feel alright still.

17. I seriously want to know why this is such a big deal to you people. Why do you care if gays want to get married? Does it really hurt you our family? Do you truly fear this "attack on the family"? Doesn't everyone deserve to love and be loved? Where in the Bible is marriage actually defined as being between a man and a woman?

I seriously want to know the answers to these questions. I have never been bothered by ****sexuality. I am straight but I am secure in my sexuality so I am not predisposed to ****phobia. As such, I really don't care what they do behind closed doors. So long as any and all parties involved are consenting and of legal age. That being the case, I don't care if they want to get married either.

I understand full well that ****sexuality is an "abomination" to you people because your "God" says it is so, but marriage is more of legal matter than anything. Yes, there should be love, trust, respect etc., but it is still nothing more than a piece of paper that cost roughly \$75 depending on your locale. Not to mention the fact that these attempts to bar ****sexual couples from getting married is clearly religiously influenced and there is something of the matter of Separation of Church and State. These bans are Uncons***utional and should be repealed.

I have heard people, many people, on that slippery slope claiming that; if we recognize ****sexual marriages it won't be long before we are recognizing interspecies couples. That is a ridiculous argument, so don't even try to make it. The only definition of marriage that I am familiar of is a legal contract entered into by two consenting adults. Since most animals don't have opposable thumbs, and none aside from us can speak; they would not be able to sign the contract or give consent. Therefore no one would allowed to marry their turtle or television or any other crazy thing like that.
That being said I will get off my soapbox.

18. Greetings IR

[QUOTE=IncitingRiots;2826]I seriously want to know why this is such a big deal to you people. Why do you care if gays want to get married? Does it really hurt you our family? Do you truly fear this "attack on the family"? Doesn't everyone deserve to love and be loved?

First of all many people do see ****sexuality as a sin and our God does say this act is an abomination. He is your God too by the way whether you want Him or not, and that is not a slam against you just a fact.
I cannot stop people from "wanting" to do anything but a society without morals and laws will soon crumble. There are many people who "want" to steal, rape, kill and a variety of other acts God also considers to be sin and I'm sure you would not want these to become legal. Now I am not equating the desires of ****sexuals with rape and murder, I am making a point about where ignoring God's law will lead.
Everyone does deserve to love and be loved, but ****sexuality is not about love but sex. There are many men who love other men but do not engage in sex with them. We were not created to sodomize one another man or women.
God made man and woman obviously different to fit together in marriage, each
one honoring and respecting the other in love. We were not created to do whatever we please to, or with someone else. There are men who think they love small children and wish to have sex with them, should that be allowed?
Condoning immoral behavior by saying it is legal does hurt my family because surly it will lead to worse and more perverse behavior. Sin has a detremental
effect on society so the idea that what one does in privacy does not harm others is false. There are absolute truths and morals and logically must come from One who is absolutly moral and truthful. God has given us boundries to protect us, we would do well to listen to His law. But as I know and you know
humans have a hard time keeping away from things that will harm us and that will seperate us from God. That is why we need a Savior and Redeemer and when we finally realize that we need something that we can't do for ourselves
break the hold of sin on our lives, God offers us freedom and life through Jesus Christ. Thanks for listening IR.

19. “First of all many people do see ****sexuality as a sin and our God does say this act is an abomination.”

Uh, I know that. You are not telling me anything I don’t already know with that information.

“He is your God too by the way whether you want Him or not, and that is not a slam against you just a fact.”

HA! I am mine own redeemer. That is not a slam against you, just a fact.

I cannot stop people from "wanting" to do anything but a society without morals and laws will soon crumble.

“There are many people who "want" to steal, rape, kill and a variety of other acts God also considers to be sin and I'm sure you would not want these to become legal. Now I am not equating the desires of ****sexuals with rape and murder, I am making a point
about where ignoring God's law will lead.”

Whether or not you feel like you are equating ****sexual desire with rape or murder; it is still a slippery slope argument, and that is a logical fallacy.

“Everyone does deserve to love and be loved, but ****sexuality is not about love but sex. There are many men who love other men but do not engage in sex with them. We were not created to sodomize one another man or women.”

That is not true. I know several gay couples and it is not just about sex. Love is a big part of their relationship and you can’t tell me any different because they are my friends, I have seen them interact and I know there is love. Yes there are men who love other men but don’t engage in sex with one another. I love my grandpa but I wouldn’t have sex with him for a few reasons. 1. Incest is just plain gross. 2. I am not gay. I love my friends who are guys but wouldn’t have sex with them because, well, I am not gay. I have friends who are girls that I love, but I don’t have sex with them because sex has a tendency to complicate things between friends, or I just am not physically attracted to them. I am not sure if you know this but sodomy is any sexual act besides intercourse between a man and a woman in missionary position. Sodomy is illegal in several states to this day, but they can’t enforce that law. Even a god fearing person has to realize the importance of a healthy sex life in a relationship and how to keep it healthy sometimes we need to mix it up and let the woman be on top.

“God made man and woman obviously different to fit together in marriage, each
one honoring and respecting the other in love.”

Have you seen most married couples these days? Honor and respect have taken a back seat to the size of bank accounts *****es and breasts. Something like 65% of marriages will fail. There are some couples who are married and will stay that way but for the most part, marriage is becoming a somewhat pointless act.

“We were not created to do whatever we please to, or with someone else.”

Whoa, hold on just one second; I thought “God” gave us free will.

“There are men who think they love small children and wish to have sex with them, should that be allowed?”

Well first of all there are also woman like that out there as well. Secondly, no, I don’t think that should be allowed. A child has not developed mentally in order to make such a decision. Children are very easily manipulated by adults; because as children, we are taught to respect adults. These people you speak of do not “love small children” they are infatuated with them, people consider it a disease, I think all pedophiles should be publicly executed, but that is a different story.

“Condoning immoral behavior by saying it is legal does hurt my family because surly it will lead to worse and more perverse behavior.”

Please, enlighten me as to what behavior it will lead to. I will politely ask that you do not revert to any slippery slope arguments.

“Sin has a detrimental effect on society so the idea that what one does in privacy does not harm others is false.”

Well how is it harming me? How is it harming you? How? How? How?

“ There are absolute truths and morals and logically must come from One who is absolutly moral and truthful.”

God is anything but absolutely moral. Have you actually read the bible? I have read both the OT and the NT. There are some pretty gruesome immoral things going on in there that “God” not only allowed to happen, but condone as well.

“God has given us boundries to protect us, we would do well to listen to His law. But as I know and you know humans have a hard time keeping away from things that will harm us and that will seperate us from God. That is why we need a Savior and Redeemer and when we finally realize that we need something that we can't do for ourselves
break the hold of sin on our lives, God offers us freedom and life through Jesus Christ.”

So it doesn’t bother you that you are essentially forcing your religious beliefs on people? By being for the ban on gay marriage and using your religion as a basis for it you have become a fascist. We all know where fascism leads don’t we?

20. ## Sez you

“There are men who think they love small children and wish to have sex with them, should that be allowed?”

Well first of all there are also woman like that out there as well. Secondly, no, I don’t think that should be allowed. A child has not developed mentally in order to make such a decision. Children are very easily manipulated by adults; because as children, we are taught to respect adults. These people you speak of do not “love small children” they are infatuated with them, people consider it a disease, I think all pedophiles should be publicly executed, but that is a different story.
Greetings IR,

Your response is interesting to this point. Why should what you think be the deciding factor? I mean to say, with all respect, does not the child feel shame and guilt because our laws and legacy social mores are so embedded it leads adults to think it's bad and therefore project that at***ude when questioning children? I mean that children are sharp and want to please and are highly suggestable and authorites are the good guys right? If the authorities say it's wrong then it must be and they do not want to get into trouble and say they made me. I bet that among these people they see the gentle love and affection for these kids that you fail to see because of your p***ionate baseless bias. Who are you to say they don't real love just because you find it repulsing? So what if people consider it a disease, who are "they" to make judgements and demonize a segmment of our society?

Well anyway it is nice to see we have some common ground

Blessings,

MacG

21. Originally Posted by IncitingRiots
“There are men who think they love small children and wish to have sex with them, should that be allowed?”

Well first of all there are also woman like that out there as well. Secondly, no, I don’t think that should be allowed. A child has not developed mentally in order to make such a decision. Children are very easily manipulated by adults; because as children, we are taught to respect adults. These people you speak of do not “love small children” they are infatuated with them, people consider it a disease, I think all pedophiles should be publicly executed, but that is a different story.
Not necessarily so. One person's disease might be another's indulgence. They could be satanists. This from your bible says the number one thing is indulgence.

I Satan represents indulgence, instead of abstinence!

They are indulging themselves just as other satanists indulge themselves, no?

22. There is a big difference between indulgence, and compulsion. The people you speak of aren't indulging in what they do, they are compelled to do it. It literally makes me sick to my stomache that you would liken pedophiles to Satanists simply because of what you deem to be "indulgence" One of the 11 Satanic Rules of Earth is "Do not harm little children" another is about not making sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal. Your claim reminds me a lot of claims of SRA (Satanic Ritual Abuse), all of which were proven to be false. It seems to me the ones molesting little kids are members of the Judeo-Christian faiths Anyone who claims to be a Satanist and does things like that to kids, is decidedly not a Satanist!

23. Originally Posted by IncitingRiots
There is a big difference between indulgence, and compulsion. The people you speak of aren't indulging in what they do, they are compelled to do it. It literally makes me sick to my stomache that you would liken pedophiles to Satanists simply because of what you deem to be "indulgence" One of the 11 Satanic Rules of Earth is "Do not harm little children" another is about not making sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal. Your claim reminds me a lot of claims of SRA (Satanic Ritual Abuse), all of which were proven to be false. It seems to me the ones molesting little kids are members of the Judeo-Christian faiths Anyone who claims to be a Satanist and does things like that to kids, is decidedly not a Satanist!
It's a quote from your bible which you provided, not mine.

I Satan represents indulgence, instead of abstinence!

This statement makes no qualifications (conditions) that there are somethings that one should not indulge in. According to satanism by your own words one should indulge and not abstain.

in·dulge
Pronunciation:
\in-ˈdəlj\
Function:
verb
Inflected Form(s):
in·dulged; in·dulg·ing
Etymology:
Latin indulgēre to be complaisant
Date:
circa 1623

transitive verb 1 a: to give free rein to b: to take unrestrained pleasure in : gratify2 a: to yield to the desire of : humor <please indulge me for a moment> b: to treat with excessive leniency, generosity, or consideration. intransitive verb: to indulge oneself.

Indulge implies excessive compliance and weakness in gratifying another's or one's own desires.

They simply yield to their own desire as you do.

To say that they are compelled to do these things is saying that they are being forced to do them. Who is forcing them?

24. Thanks for the dictionary definition of indulgence, it was not needed but thanks anyway.

No, that statement doesn't say anything about the qualifications, but if one were to read more than just the first page they would learn. None of that changes the fact that you so arrogantly tried to liken pedophiles to Satanists because of what you consider to be indulgence.

To answer your last question; who is forcing them? The answer is quite simple. They are forcing themselves. For some sick and twisted reason I will never understand they feel the need to do these sorts of things. They know it is illegal and immoral yet they do it anyways. They are weak-willed scum of the earth and I wouldn't mind personally executing every last one of them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concerning MacG:

"I bet that among these people they see the gentle love and affection for these kids that you fail to see because of your p***ionate baseless bias. Who are you to say they don't real love just because you find it repulsing? So what if people consider it a disease, who are "they" to make judgements and demonize a segmment of our society?"

I am disgusted that you would actually try to defend these people! Are you a Catholic Priest? That would make sense if you were. We have laws for a reason. Children are easily taken advantage of and are very naive. What these people do is wrong regardless of the legality. Even if for some horrid reason it were legalized; it would still be wrong. If these people truly loved anybody they would be able to respect the laws and wait until the person comes of legal age. I can't believe I have to argue this. And no, apparently we don;t share a common ground. You are a pedophile apologist, and I think you should executed with the people you are defending!

25. ## Back up, Dude!

Originally Posted by IncitingRiots
Concerning MacG:

"I bet that among these people they see the gentle love and affection for these kids that you fail to see because of your p***ionate baseless bias. Who are you to say they don't real love just because you find it repulsing? So what if people consider it a disease, who are "they" to make judgements and demonize a segmment of our society?"

I am disgusted that you would actually try to defend these people! Are you a Catholic Priest? That would make sense if you were. We have laws for a reason. Children are easily taken advantage of and are very naive. What these people do is wrong regardless of the legality. Even if for some horrid reason it were legalized; it would still be wrong. If these people truly loved anybody they would be able to respect the laws and wait until the person comes of legal age. I can't believe I have to argue this. And no, apparently we don;t share a common ground. You are a pedophile apologist, and I think you should executed with the people you are defending!
IR,

I thought that you wanted intelligent debate, I was palying the Devils' Advocate (no pun intended). Which is why we do have something in common afterall for I was not really defending them. My point was who are you to ***ert your moral values on society? Or judge other's values to be wrong?

The FEW Catholic Priests out of the many thousands that have lived out their evil on those abused are the plane crashes of the Catholic Faith. It is still considered safe to fly but maybe not however for those who survived one of the crashes.

Regarding the term evil. I meant no offense to you by its use, what term do you use to describe such acts? Is it evil? Or what defines evil to you? Ah, perhaps that should be answered in another thread.

I do find it interesting that there are rules respecting anything other than yourself and the santanic principles. This exposes my bias and I am a bit more informed.

Perhaps I mistook you for a relativist whose feet are planted frimly in mid-air, as you do actually have a standard to measure other things by. My ignorant understanding of satanism was pretty much, all for me, too bad for you and whatever the Bible says make it opposite. My apologies.

Blessings,

MacG

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•