Gay Marriage: Should It Be Allowed?

<<Sigh>>. I never said he found peace. I said I hope he's found peace. And yes, I am sure there isn't a single gay man in the world who marries and has children to drive the "demon" from his nature. Wait, I've known them - my ex-girlfriend's dad, for one, who eventually left his family to return to patent homosexuality.

This isn't for proteindude, as he has shown in this thread that facts don't matter; nor does basic logic. I'd invite others to investigate Mr. Rogers's "sayings" and conclude for themselves. From his website:

"Christians are often ashamed to admit what everyone knows: Christianity does not make us immune to our sexual passions..."

As I said, he may not (or, may - none of us know; the case of Ted Haggard is illustrative) engage in homosexual behavior; but his essential nature - what he desires - remains. His theology has told him homosexuality is an abomination, so he will do whatever he can do to drive it from him. This was him as a boy:



When I saw him on Donahue, I just remember being saddened: the point was made by someone in the audience that he very seemed very obviously gay still, and he replied something to the effect "I'm as straight as they come, Buster!"

Anyone can choose to behave in any way they wish; in line or against who and what they are. I would think a deeper peace comes from simply accepting oneself.

 

Uh, physician, I'd say, heal thyself.

I can't remember "the poll" either. Perhaps a source might clear this up?

 

sounds like someone has anus/penis/feces on the mind a lot

 

Wow, "all" is a strong word; I'd like to see the source of this as well...

 

I noticed you didn't dispute any of the facts. This is the first step in the right direction. Good on ya mate (that's an Aussie expression)

 

Which "proteindude" is replying again? "Whole Bible" guy, or "Use whatever works for the moment" guy? (How's the "poll" sourcing coming, "mate?")

 

New and Old: there is a difference. Ask any sane person and they will tell you: New means current and Old means from the past. Two different things. Listen to this: Born Again. That means you no longer have a love for physical things only: money, cars, clothes etc. It means you ALSO have a love for spiritual things: praying, going to church, reading the WHOLE BIBLE. Obeying God's commandments. BTW, God would not give you a command which you cannot keep and then send you to hell for breaking a commandment you cannot keep. So if he gives commandments, I am absolutely certain it is in your power to fulfill them. Do you see my point?

 

Congrats. And it only took how many pages, to attempt an answer?

Your point, from what I can tell, was to castigate a member for not following the WHOLE bible, in one breath; and then when some very real-world problems of following that WHOLE bible were pointed out, you conveniently slipped into the "New Covenant" line.

I was once you. By 14, I was preaching in school, and left home and school to fast in the foothills of Southern California, taking Christ's message literally; namely, put your mind on God, and all else will be taken care of. Literally. I believed in the reality of the Second Coming and was preparing myself for such an event, over the course of many years. The beauty and poetry of such beatification will never be lost to me, and I say this as an atheist.

Unfortunately, neither will the ugliness of such hypocrisy as you have displayed throughout this thread. Unfortunately, many, like you, have supplanted the message "leave to God what is God's," with their own ego and troubled soul. You appear to me to be obsessed with sodomy, and use your zealotry in an attempt to drive such obsession from your mind. I'd offer: let go, live your life, as a Christian, and let your God sort it out.

 

I'm waiting on that also... fake statistics have long been a tool for oppressing minorities... I'd love to see the stats stating that "all" gay people in the survey admitted to being unfaithful...

 

Maybe in another dozen pages or so. Tap-dancing apparently takes time.

 

I love Southern California. A great place to live in. My favorite town is Carlsbad. Someone asked an interesting question in my church: "How many of you believe there were kangaroos in the middle east?" Nobody was keen to answer. Anyway, the guy continued: "In the Bible it says the animals came 2 by 2 in the Ark. Now, how many of you believe there were kangaroos in the middle east?" A few hands started to go up. The guy continued: "The problem is a lot of us Christians use the outside world influences to help us interpret the Bible. We should let the Bible speak for itself." I (this is me, proteindude) thought that was a top point. The Bible is the most attacked book in all history. Long after you (and me) are gone (because don't forget statistics say 10 out of 10 die) the Bible will still be around and atheists will still try to tear it dowd. And of course they will continue to fail.

Any way you look at sodomy and any way you try to sanitise it there is not a single group of more promiscuos people. You can use any wordly wisdom you can to defend sodomy and yet your conscience tells you there is something wrong. If you can appease your conscience I would say you would not have the anal sex pride marches. Let's call a spade a spade huh? Homosexuality has at its centre anal sex. The whole thing revolves around the rectum. And for that pole I do not remember it. "Ha, ha, ha. Proteindude is lying and making it up." Proteindude believes lying is a sin and lying is something protein dude does not do anymore.

 

Coming up with fake stats always takes a few days.. come on. i'm waiting!!

 

This is a webmaster forum; maybe he's working on it now...

all-gays-are-cheaters.com <--- look for it to go live soon

 

Hey thats my MFA site get your own..

But back on topic. I don't care about gay marriages but i want the same standing. I want to know if I have a child my partner has instant custody where she doesnt have to go to court and fight for it. I what my partner if i die to be entitled to my pension. These are all i want from the government.

 

I'm not sure. But there are plenty suggesting that animals have the same rights as people, and marriage is a right. You've got animals being treated as people in a variety of ways, to include being heirs to considerable sums of money. If nobody has suggested marrying animals already (a fact that would surprise me considerably) then it can't be far away.

I've yet to hear of any country in which homos are not permitted to marry. In most if not all countries in which same sex marriage is illegal, the exact same rights and restrictions regarding marriage apply equally to both heteros and homos. Everybody, gay or straight, has the right to marry a person of the opposite gender. Everybody, gay or straight, is forbidden to marry a person of the same gender.

Nonetheless it is still outside the norm, and was considerably more so 50 years ago, which brings us to the trend I mentioned. Marriage started out as a union between a man and a woman. It was a system that has worked for centuries. Social radicals bored with the status quo want to expand the scope of marriage to include marrying adults of the same sex. Some countries have even started doing this. Quite likely, the US and the UK will eventually permit same sex marriages. This has started a sociological momentem in the direction away from established traditions. In other words, a trend. For this trend to continue (as far as marriage goes), the next step would be to expand the scope of marriage even further, to possibly include siblings, children, and/or animals. So you see, since marriage between people and animals would be considerably farther down the timeline of this trend than same sex marriage, you can't make any reasonable allegement of "equating gays with animals"

I personally place more value on the lives of animals than I do most people. However, if anybody else has also felt inclined to read this nonsense into what I've said, let me set the record straight, and say with earnest that I meant no insult to either gays, nor animals.

You are too kind, good sir. I'm equally amused by the inherent irony in your statement, "The ignorance of you statements in amazing." May this be the beginning of a wonderful friendship.

 

I find it funny, that I'm not gay, and really don't have any close gay friends, but I feel they deserve more... Full equality... Not just to be recognized as a "union", but also to get all the tax-breaks and everything else...

 

We eat animals, every day we kill thousands of animals in animal shelters around the U.S.. I said it kind of stretch to say they have rights

umm, this paragraph doesn't actually make sense to me. Am I reading it wrong?

Actually in some cultures it was a union between a man and woman, if he had money. Also 50 years ago in many states it was illegal for races to inter marry. So I would would hardly look to the past for standards to judge today one.

ok, animals have no rights, they cannot enter into contracts. Marriage is essentially a contract between 2 people that is recognized by the state. If we start seeing animals give emancipation, and legal status as citizens, then maybe you argument would make sense

Does that mean you are hoping for animal human marriages?

 

If it doesn't make sense to you, then you are probably reading it incorrectly, yes.

Evidently you've read this incorrectly as well. I'm not looking to the past except to point out the trend which you yourself asked about.

Not at all. It means that unless we stop pandering to radical liberals who want to veer from tradition as far as possible and at every opportunity, this is what we're likely to see in the future.

 

Tradition is the enemy of progress. To many people prefer to carry on doing the same thing over and over again for no other reason than that's how it's always been done.

 

I believe Tradition is a great teacher; so long as it is a living thing. I believe we stand on a foundation from the past, and use this to cast ourselves into new worlds; we create ourselves from where we come.

I believe our job is to master the past, then break it. Breaking it with zero understanding of what has been handed down makes for rootless work, an "avant-garde" that comes to nothing; slavishly adhering to the past in supplantation of our own voice kills the living in our work. I believe this holds for all human effort.