Gay Marriage

[IncitingRiots]

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 These bans are Uncons***utional and should be repealed.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.

[disciple]

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.

[IncitingRiots]

“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?

[MacG]

“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

[sayso]

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?

[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!

[sayso]

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?

[IncitingRiots]

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!

[MacG]

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

[IncitingRiots]

"My point was who are you to ***ert your moral values on society? Or judge other's values to be wrong?"

Point well taken, but I could ask you the same question. I don't feel like I am ***erting my values on society at all. There are universal morals and then there are individual morals. It seems to me that pedophilia should fall under the category of being universally wrong. Then again, I am sure you make the same argument about ****sexuality. I can sense a circular argument taking shape.

"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?"

I didn't even notice you use the term evil so I took no offence to it. To me evil and good are really subjective. What one person deems to be evil another person might consider it to be good. For the sake of argument let's use Hitler as an example. What he did is seen by people the world over as being evil. To him he thought what he was doing was good. I am not condoning genocide, just using an example. The person who gives half their paycheck to charity every month and is seen as a good person is just as capable of going on a killing spree, as the serial killer; who is seen as evil, is capable of loving a puppy. To me there really is no such thing as evil, there is only good and bad. Even then nothing is really good or bad, it just is. Notions of good, evil, right and wrong ultimately depend, I think, on moral subjectivity.

[oatmeal]

Since God ins***uted marriage and authored it's definition, I believe the state should hold to His ruling......
****sexuals are free to breathe, eat, provide their shelter, defend their lives,
and pursue happiness.
But it is interminably clear that God has witheld from them not only holy matrimony, but indeed, the very act that defines them.


You can change and redefine state laws; but God's holy word does not change.
As far as why we are seeing this thing blossom and grow out of all proportion
to it's real size, I believe you will find the answer to that in JohnD's post.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by oatmeal

But it is interminably clear that God has witheld from them not only holy matrimony,

Matrimony can only be regarded as "holy" if it is consecrated by a given religious body. I support the rights of religious bodies to determine who they will and will not marry.

The Catholic church will not bless the union of divorcees. There is neither reason nor basis to enshrine such restriction in civil law - if only for the quite obvious reason that not everyone is Catholic!

Likewise, whether you or your religious body believes that "God has withheld" marriage from same-sex couples, that does not stand as a reasonable basis for restricting them under civil law.

but indeed, the very act that defines them.

That you regard the sex act as the defining characteristic of gay and lesbian people is most telling.

[oatmeal]

[QUOTE=asdf;28160]Matrimony can only be regarded as "holy" if it is consecrated by a given religious body. I support the rights of religious bodies to determine who they will and will not marry.

The Catholic church will not bless the union of divorcees. There is neither reason nor basis to enshrine such restriction in civil law - if only for the quite obvious reason that not everyone is Catholic!


Whatsoever God has joined(man and woman)let no man put asunder.
If two be joined in matrimony it is deemed holy by God, save for the cause of divorce.


Likewise, whether you or your religious body believes that "God has withheld" marriage from same-sex couples, that does not stand as a reasonable basis for restricting them under civil law.

God created man and woman, not civil law.....The ins***ute of marriage belongs to God for his purpose, not civil law.



That you regard the sex act as the defining characteristic of gay and lesbian people is most telling.[/QUOTE]




Words have a meaning: actions speak more clearly than words; We have come to a point
in America where we are redefining words and there meanings.
God will not be mocked: He changes not.

[sunofmysoul]

Originally Posted by oatmeal

Since God ins***uted marriage and authored it's definition, I believe the state should hold to His ruling......
****sexuals are free to breathe, eat, provide their shelter, defend their lives,
and pursue happiness.
But it is interminably clear that God has witheld from them not only holy matrimony, but indeed, the very act that defines them.


You can change and redefine state laws; but God's holy word does not change.
As far as why we are seeing this thing blossom and grow out of all proportion
to it's real size, I believe you will find the answer to that in JohnD's post.

a question.

God commanded in the beginning for us to multiply and fill the earth...
procreation was a large part of the initial beginning of marriage.

Do we now believe that all marriage is for this purpose?
Or is one of the primary purposes, changing? Now that we have filled the earth, can marriage have room for those who do not meet the ability to fulfill this command? (we now use birth control which is food for thought...)

A second question, would be what of those who do not fit into the "foreordained ins***ute" definition of male or female? what of the intergender?



thanks,
soms

[sayso]

Originally Posted by IncitingRiots

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.

Aren't you applying a double standard to say that as a satanist you may indulge in whatever you like but another may not if what they desire is different then what you desire?

I am sorry if I misunderstood but I thought that when you listed "The nine statements of the satanic bible" you said that they (the statements) say it best. I took that to mean that your entire belief could be summed up in these statements.

Here's another statement you listed:

VIII Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification!


So does this mean that satan represents pedophilia since it qualifies as a "so-called sin"? This either means what it says or it doesn't, right?

The way I see it, you personally may not completely understand or believe in all the tenants of your own religion.

Originally Posted by IncitingRiots

As a Satanist I see myself as my own god, the master of my life and my universe. I do not believe in any anthoprmorphic deity of ultimate good or ultimate evil.

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.

Double standard again. You as a satanist can be your own god, unaccountable to anyone or anything; master of your own universe. However, if someone else lives by this same self-centered standard indulging in their own whims without restraint then because you see it as immoral they should be executed.

[IncitingRiots]

"Aren't you applying a double standard to say that as a satanist you may indulge in whatever you like but another may not if what they desire is different then what you desire?"

I never said people couldn't do what ever desire; they can. However, one must be aware of the consequences of their actions. That is what "responsibility to the responsible" means.

"I thought that when you listed "The nine statements of the satanic bible" you said that they (the statements) say it best. I took that to mean that your entire belief could be summed up in these statements."

No, Satanism can not entirely be summed up by those nine statements, or even the entire Satanic Bible. There is alot to learn about TLHP and you certainly can not get it all from one book. Satanism is a journey, not a destination. The reason I listed those nine statements is because you asked how I can be a Satanist without worshipping Satan. I cordially obliged you in answering your question by informing you that the "Satan" in Satanism is a metaphor and entirely different than the Christian concept of Satan.

"So does this mean that satan represents pedophilia since it qualifies as a "so-called sin"? This either means what it says or it doesn't, right?"

The "sins" that statement refers to the "Seven Deadly Sins". One could argue that pedophilia falls under lust, which, I suppose it could. However, committing an act of pedophilia breaks two of the 11 Satanic Rules of the Earth: "Do not harm little children" and "Do not make sexual advances unless given the mating signal". These "rules" are really more indicative of things the Satanist would avoid doing anyway by their own nature. It really seems now that this discussion has turned from the issue of gay marriage towards you trying to link Satanism with pedophilia. You are doing a horrible ***, if I do say myself.

"The way I see it, you personally may not completely understand or believe in all the tenants of your own religion."

If that is the way you see it; you are blind my friend.

"Double standard again. You as a satanist can be your own god, unaccountable to anyone or anything; master of your own universe. However, if someone else lives by this same self-centered standard indulging in their own whims without restraint then because you see it as immoral they should be executed."

You are putting words in my mouth once again and it is becoming quite annoying. I never said I am unaccountable to anyone or anything. Everyone is is accountable. As I said people must be aware of the consequences of their actions. Sure people can do what ever they want, but, if some sick freak were to molest any of my friends' kid or my nephews; I would see to it they got was coming to them. Then I too, would have to deal with the consequences of my actions. I would be accountable to the State, but when I die; I will not be accountable to anything.

[sayso]

It really seems now that this discussion has turned from the issue of gay marriage towards you trying to link Satanism with pedophilia.

No that isn't really what I'm trying to do. I am aware that in all religions it is wrong to generalize. Simply because someone claims to be of a certain religion that does not mean that they will hold strictly to that religion's belief and statements of doctrine.

Just as there are some who claim to be Christian, who do compromise and do despicable things, there are those in all religions including satanism who do despicable things, because in each case it is the individual who decides whether or not they will follow the "rules" of their own religion.

The only thing that is different about your religion is that you are your own god so that means you make the rules right? Or is your statement about being your own god wrong when it involves satanism? Who is the god who made up the satanic bible?

You are putting words in my mouth once again and it is becoming quite annoying.

Sorry, I didn't mean to annoy you. I'm just trying to understand exactly what restrictions satanism puts on it's followers and if they have no leader who made the rules.

So I guess you are saying that satanists believe in obeying man made laws, huh?

[IncitingRiots]

"Just as there are some who claim to be Christian, who do compromise and do despicable things, there are those in all religions including satanism who do despicable things, because in each case it is the individual who decides whether or not they will follow the "rules" of their own religion."

This is true, but I think someone who claims to follow a religion, system of belief etc. but thinks they can pick and choose what to obey and what not to obey isn't actually a member of that religion. If you have to pick and choose then you are probably subscribing to the wrong set of beliefs.

"The only thing that is different about your religion is that you are your own god so that means you make the rules right?"

Well yes I make my own rules, so does everyone in one way or another. However, we live in a society based on laws and rules that we have to follow in order to function in said society. Yes one can choose to ignore these rules and laws, but they do so at their own peril.

"Who is the god who made up the satanic bible?"

No "god" made up The Satanic Bible. It was written by Anton Lavey and much of it is influenced by the writings of people like Ragnar Redbeard, Ayn Rand, H L Mencken, Jack London and Frederich Neitzche.

"I'm just trying to understand exactly what restrictions satanism puts on it's followers and if they have no leader who made the rules."

They aren't really really restrictions. As I stated these "rules" are nothing more than examples of types of behavior a true Satanist would naturally avoid. They aren't listed to tell you how to "be" a Satanist, they are listed to tell you if you "are" a Satanist. The same goes for The Nine Satanic Sins. They aren't really "sins" just things a Satanist would naturally avoid out of their own volition.

"So I guess you are saying that satanists believe in obeying man made laws, huh? "

Well many do. As do most people out there regardless of their religious affiliation or lack thereof. Not breaking the law is just plain common sense. There are those who feel that, as their own gods, the laws of man don't apply to them. They are en***led to that opinion but have only themselves to blame if they decide to break these laws and get caught.

Personally I am an Anarchist. I feel I don't need a cop to tell me the right thing to do, nor do I need some government trying to dictate what I can and can't do. Unfortunately we do have a government and I don't think that is going to change in my life time so I am bound by these rules simply because I enjoy my own freedom. That is not to say that I would just go around murdering innocent people for no reason, because I wouldn't and if I really wanted to I would do it regardless of the consequences, but I sure wouldn't mind the freedom to grow a giant field of marijuana in my back yard.

[TRiG]

Originally Posted by disciple

****sexuality is not about love but sex

Who do you think you are?

TRiG.

[sunofmysoul]

Originally Posted by disciple

Greetings IR

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.

I certainly understand TRiG's frustration with this sentence.
It stems from ignorance, so knowing this I shall try to ask you to consider the alternative...Is heterosexuality not about love , but only sex?
Does it not more depend on the desire, the act, and not the orientations?
Yes a heterosexual act, or a ****sexual act can be about the sex. But what we so easily miss, and are not perhaps ready to understand is that ****sexuals would like the same freedom and privilege we so easily take for granted, to love and commit themselves to another, have a relationship that is NOT just about the sex, but about love, commitment, friendship, courage, sacrifice, sharing, caring, and all that good stuff that comes in a relationship.
Your statement only reveals the fact that you know absolutely nothing about ****sexuality.

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.

Making something legal does not make it right. I will agree with that.
Consider that old guys were allowed to marry little girls in biblical times. (pedophilia would be allowed biblically speaking as long as one married the child) We now find that to be unacceptable. (as we gain knowledge in science, and evolve in our understanding we are able to make more enlightened decisions) We now realize that young girls getting pregnant at an early age is not only physically harmful to both the mother and child, but that in our present age, the child is not emotionally ready to be a parent. Henceforth we see more and more states, making stricter laws about age limits. (slowly but hopefully surely).

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.

ah here i would struggle with absolute morals, as I do not believe we can really use those, but rather an absolute standard that we would base our decisions off of. (always choosing the greater good or the lesser evil)....

[Austin Canes]

Originally Posted by sunofmysoul

I certainly understand TRiG's frustration with this sentence...

Yeah, it's not reasonable to say that ****sexual people are not and cannot be in 'real' love.

The physical aspect is not all that defines ****sexuality; but that is what many religious people are taught. In fact, the ignorance and distortion about that is so 'pervasive', that many a GAY person has slipped under the religious-radar, simply by having a wife and several children.

The numbers of divorced (from heterosexual marriages), ****sexual people (with kids) I've known, proved to me a long time ago, that sexual-orientation (or iden***y) is about far more than what people do with their body parts.

...Your statement only reveals the fact that you know absolutely nothing about ****sexuality...

You are correct.

...ah here i would struggle with absolute morals, as I do not believe we can really use those, but rather an absolute standard that we would base our decisions off of. (always choosing the greater good or the lesser evil)....

Very sensible and reasonable.

[alanmolstad]

While I believe the term, "marriage" should be reserved for legal unions between members of different sex, I have no problem with members of the SAME SEX being allowed to forum the same types of legal unions called "Domestic partnerships" or "Civil unions"

This means the the GAYs should be protected under the law in the same manner as straight people are...as well as binding the gay under the same laws too.

By this I mean that getting a "Dissolved Civil Union" should be the same mess as for straight people getting a divorce...(meaning lawyers and lots of screaming).


In this way then the religion's people of faith can feel that they have protected the idea of the Christian "marriage" and at the same time have offered the Gays the same protections and demands given to others who are not Gay.

The term "marriage" is reserved for the straight unions, ...without any meanings to this other that the term will simply mean "Union between two of different sex"

sorta like the term "straight" simply means in this context to have a tradition view of sexuality....and "gay means to be attracted sexualty to a member of the same sex.

The terms themselves do not cause anyone to believe their rights are missing....they are just terms to help us understand who is turned on by who....

[asdf]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

While I believe the term, "marriage" should be reserved for legal unions between members of different sex, I have no problem with members of the SAME SEX being allowed to forum the same types of legal unions called "Domestic partnerships" or "Civil unions"

This means the the GAYs should be protected under the law in the same manner as straight people are...as well as binding the gay under the same laws too.

By this I mean that getting a "Dissolved Civil Union" should be the same mess as for straight people getting a divorce...(meaning lawyers and lots of screaming).


In this way then the religion's people of faith can feel that they have protected the idea of the Christian "marriage" and at the same time have offered the Gays the same protections and demands given to others who are not Gay.

The term "marriage" is reserved for the straight unions, ...without any meanings to this other that the term will simply mean "Union between two of different sex"

sorta like the term "straight" simply means in this context to have a tradition view of sexuality....and "gay means to be attracted sexualty to a member of the same sex.

The terms themselves do not cause anyone to believe their rights are missing....they are just terms to help us understand who is turned on by who....

Hi Alan,

First of all I'd like to say I (greatly!) appreciate your empathy and ability to see that gay people are deserving of protection and the validation of their relationships under civil law. That's a pretty fundamental baseline in my opinion, even for those who consider same-sex relationships to be immoral.

I understand that you're saying that your proposed definition of "civil union" or "domestic partnership" should entail exactly the same rights, responsibilities and protections under law as "marriage". Again, that's a step in the right direction, but it's one that doesn't work for me, and I believe it will not ultimately be deemed acceptable.

"Separate but equal" is a concept that has had a long history in U.S. law—from separate Colored and White drinking fountains to segregated schools to anti-miscegenation laws. The concept has been ruled uncons***utional—and rightly so. To set up a separate and parallel ins***ution from the one that heterosexual people are able to participate in, you enshrine into law that gay people are Other, that their relationships are almost-but-not-quite as valued by society as opposite-sex relationships.

We already have a perfectly good word and a perfectly good ins***ution to refer to the voluntary union between two people in a committed, monogamous, lasting intimate relationship—marriage.

I understand that some religious people object. The solution is not to allow one sectarian religious view of marriage to define reality for all Americans—the solution is to allow religious exemption (which currently already exists), allowing churches to continue to perform marriages only for those they choose.

Churches have discretion over those they choose to marry. The Catholic church (for example) is, and will remain, free to perform marriages only between a never-married Catholic man and a never-married Catholic woman. Non-Catholics, divorcees and same-sex couples need not apply. They can (or should be able to) go to the justice of the peace for that.

This is pretty much textbook First Amendment stuff here—no compulsion for the Catholic church to violate its conscience; no compulsion for the civil authorities to kowtow to Catholic teachings.

[alanmolstad]

I believe we should reserve the term "Marriage" to mean: "A legal union between two people of different sex"

This meaning does not place a value on itself, but simply helps people to understand the sex of the people in the union.

Its like the terms "****sexuality" or "Gay" when used in this context do not place a value on the sexuality but are just terms used to help people understand what form of sexuality we are talking about.

The benefit of reserving the term "marriage" to mean the union of different sexes is that we show respect to the feelings and traditional beliefs of people of faith like myself.

after all, it was a gay person who came up with the term "Domestic partnership" to describe this form on single-sex legal union after all....

I am just saying that we should make legally clarifying this different meaning to the terms to avoid a pointless debate.

Marriage - union of different sex
Domestic partnership = union of the same sex

[alanmolstad]

My suggestion for a clear diffinition between the two different forms of union with a totally different use of words is also something that would REALLY help the averagfe person get a heads-up before going to a social event.....(ie a marriage or a Civial union)

In the real world it would break down to being like this:

You open your mail one day and find an invitation to a co-worker's child's "marriage"

From the use of the term "marriage" you know a head of time what to expect....you know this will be an event where a man and a women are going to be united in legal union.

However lets say you open the same invitation and see you are asked to attend the union of Cris and Pat in "Domestic Partnership"

Now you know a head of time to expect that this is a union between two people of the same sex.

Everyone walks in the door of the church that day knowing what to expect, and no one gets grossed out, pukes, or points fingers. Everyone there "understands"...

Everyone there knew going in what to expect to see going on...