Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What then, want, expect to happen ?_______ Everything in this system is temporary. What is permanent will be the soon coming 1000-year governmental rule by Christ Jesus when human imperfection will be no more, and mankind's leanings will be as God originally intended. Expect that mankind will have perfect human health having a perfectly sound, heart, mind and body as God had originally made man.
Where did you get the idea that the Bible's hell is eternal ?
You don't want Bible quotes, yet you are saying biblical hell is eternal, why ?
' Caesar ' does Not have to pass any laws to govern Christians because genuine Christians already obey God as ruler.
Only when ' Caesar ' tries to force Christians to break God's law then Christians obey God as ruler rather than man.
Christian subjection to ' Caesar ' law is relative in subjection to God's absolute or superior law.
Just ignore the hell part as I was only giving what I thought were extreme or even absurd examples. I apologize if it offended you. What I did not what was a posting of a Biblical passage leaving me to guess what they actually mean.
So from your post should Christians not advocate for any law Re same sex marriage? Are they exempt from the government's law or what. Again not speaking your "language" I am not sure exactly what you mean.
If the government took away marriage benefits, that means no more spousal green cards for foreign born spouses, no more military spouses being given the benefit of living on base housing or shopping at the base commissary. It would mean spouses no longer have the right to sue for wrongful death if their spouse were killed either intentionally (murdered) or negligently (medical malpractice for instance) at the hands of another. Etc, etc, etc.
You're the one who wants to take these things away from married people - not me. Don't just say "N/A" - tell me why you think it's a good thing to take these benefits away.
Well my understanding of what homosexuals want is more towards tax breaks and things like that rather than what you had listed. I am talking about removing that perk and not the whole lot of stuff that homosexuals do not seek to benefit from.
I do not believe the green card benefit would ever apply to a homosexual marriage. Have you seen one where that would apply? And the military?
I am only referring to the homosexual main campaign for the same sex marriage that would appeal to the majority of homosexuals; take that away, and maybe there would not be any motivation for same sex marriage is my contention, but I can never prove that, of course.
Quote:
FYI, it's against the forum rules to change another poster's quote. I won't
report you, but beware that you will get an infraction for it if a moderator
sees it.
Thanks for that, but I think I should be punished and just be discouraged from posting any more.
Well my understanding of what homosexuals want is more towards tax breaks and things like that rather than what you had listed. I am talking about removing that perk and not the whole lot of stuff that homosexuals do not seek to benefit from.
I do not believe the green card benefit would ever apply to a homosexual marriage. Have you seen one where that would apply? And the military?
I am only referring to the homosexual main campaign for the same sex marriage that would appeal to the majority of homosexuals; take that away, and maybe there would not be any motivation for same sex marriage is my contention, but I can never prove that, of course.
Thanks for that, but I think I should be punished and just be discouraged from posting any more.
Have you considered the idea that homosexuals want to marry because they in fact love one another?
Well my understanding of what homosexuals want is more towards tax breaks and things like that rather than what you had listed. I am talking about removing that perk and not the whole lot of stuff that homosexuals do not seek to benefit from.
I do not believe the green card benefit would ever apply to a homosexual marriage. Have you seen one where that would apply?
Excuse me? Gay people doesn't seek the non-tax benefits of marriage??? Spousal green cards don't apply to gay marriages???
My best friend on this entire planet fell in love with and made a commitment to a man in Prague (they met while my friend was a Fulbright Scholar studying abroad). They wanted desperately for years for make a family and home together in the US, but Lukas wasn't allowed to immigrate to the US. Had they been a straight couple, they simply could have gotten civilly married and Lukas would have been issued a spousal green card to live and work in the US.
Instead, they had to shuttle back and forth between the two countries as best they could on various student, tourist, and temporary work visas. It was incredibly stressing on both of them and their relationship. They had to spend long periods of time apart more than 5000 miles away from each other, and it destroyed their ability to start careers for about 6 years since they were never in one country for more than a year at a time.
It's wasn't until DOMA was struck down as unconstitutional last year that they finally could make a home together in the US. They officially got married in the state of Washington, and Lukas was issued a spousal green card.
So yes, I have very much "seen one where that would apply." I saw firsthand how the invidiously discriminatory marriage laws of the US mistreated and caused great hardship in the lives of people very important to me.
Gay families deserve the right to get married and have access to spousal green cards just like straight families. We're fighting for that right, and we won't stop until we have it.
Quote:
I am only referring to the homosexual main campaign for the same sex marriage that would appeal to the majority of homosexuals; take that away, and maybe there would not be any motivation for same sex marriage is my contention, but I can never prove that, of course.
Here's another story. Do you remember James C. Anderson, that poor black man in Mississippi who in 2012 was run down and killed by a bunch of white strangers driving by in a truck simply because he was black? It turns out he was gay and was married (in his mind and heart) to a man for 17 years - they even raised a daughter together.
His husband of 17 years wanted to sue the murderers in a court of law for wrongful death - something any spouse would probably do, and something any heterosexual spouse has the right and ability to do. Well guess what - Mississippi said no. Mississippi threw him our of court saying he couldn't sue: only heterosexual spouses can sue for wrongful death in states where gay couples are denied the right to marry.
Gay people deserve to be treated equally under the law. We deserve to right to sue when our spouse is brutally murdered or killed negligently (by a malpracticing doctor for instance). We're fighting for that right, and we won't stop until we have it.
Quote:
And the military?
Yeah. What about it?
There are many gay people serving in our military. There are many married gay people serving in our military. There are many gay married members of out military who are raising kids together.
Marriage gives certain benefits to military members:
1) Married military members get paid more
2) Military spouses and their families qualify to live in base housing with the military member
3) Military spouses get to shop at the base commissary and PX
Why should these benefits be denied to gay military members and their spouses???
Gay families deserve the right to get married and to be treated equally when a family member joins the military. We're fighting for that right, and we won't stop until we have it.
I'm not sure what argument can be made. I've always understood that children can not give consent.
Like I said, any 'consent' is likely driven from coercion. And it's not legally consent either, since you have to be an adult to consent legally. When I said an argument could be made, I wasn't really talking about the more serious cases. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the legal definition of pedophilia is sex with a minor, which can be a 12 year old and a 40 year old, which would never have consent, but also a 22 year old and a 17 year old which could quite possibly have consent. Now, I know the social definition of pedophilia generally involves a younger child and an adult, and not a teenage who is nearly an adult with an adult, but the arguments I was referring to would in fact deal with the latter, not the first.
I probably shouldn't have even added that tidbit though. Creates the wrong idea.
You're forgetting a whole category of sexual deviancy. Any sex act other than a penis in a vagina for the express purpose of conception is sexual deviancy and sin.
Nonsense! Where did you get that idea??
I think I do know where you're coming from of course. Many hyper-religious movements formed shortly after the Protestant Reformation. A long list of sexual practices became taboo. This spilled over into the USA in a big way because so many of those who came here to colonize were those same hyper-religious folks. Puritanistic rules on sexuality have been quite persistent in the history of the United States. I believe that several states still have laws on the books prohibiting any sexual position other than missionary position and specifically prohibiting quite a few things that most couples today consider normal and healthy.
More importantly, the status of such things as sinful -- that's nowhere to be found in the Bible. Clearly procreation was the primary purpose God had in mind, but he never once said that non-procreative sex was sinful. Women and men were also clearly designed to bond together deeply through sexual intercourse. A whole lot of emotional, neurochemical and physiological things happen when two people engage in sex. I don't think God did that by accident.
There are or were anti-adultery laws on the books in all 50 states. Early on in US history, conviction of adultery could carry the death penalty in some places. I live in Illinois. The laws against adultery are generally ignored, but if convicted you could serve a prison sentence of up to one year. I think we probably should prosecute adulterers. The fact that we never do means prosecuting homosexuals would be completely hypocritical. But ideally, both of these things should be illegal in my opinion.
Last edited by godofthunder9010; 12-20-2014 at 10:18 PM..
Like I said, any 'consent' is likely driven from coercion. And it's not legally consent either, since you have to be an adult to consent legally. When I said an argument could be made, I wasn't really talking about the more serious cases. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the legal definition of pedophilia is sex with a minor, which can be a 12 year old and a 40 year old, which would never have consent, but also a 22 year old and a 17 year old which could quite possibly have consent. Now, I know the social definition of pedophilia generally involves a younger child and an adult, and not a teenage who is nearly an adult with an adult, but the arguments I was referring to would in fact deal with the latter, not the first.
Pedophilia is defined as having a sexual attraction to prepubescent children - that's its medical/psychological definition. There is no "legal definition" of pedophilia - and having sexual attraction towards prepubescent children is not a crime.
The law criminalizes sex between children and adults, usually under the term "statutory rape," but not always. What constitutes illegal sex between children and adults differs by state. For instance, it would be illegal for an 18 year old to have sex with a 17 year old in California, but in Colorado it's perfectly legal for a 24 year old to have sex with a 15 year old. I believe that everywhere in the US it is illegal for someone age 18+ to have sex with someone 13 or younger.
Last edited by hammertime33; 12-20-2014 at 10:18 PM..
Pedophilia is defined as having a sexual attraction to prepubescent children - that's its medical/psychological definition. There is no "legal definition" of pedophilia - and having sexual attraction towards prepubescent children is not a crime.
The law criminalizes sex between children and adults, usually under the term "statutory rape," but not always. What constitutes illegal sex between children and adults differs by state. For instance, it would be illegal for an 18 year old to have sex with a 17 year old in California, but in Colorado it's perfectly legal for a 24 year old to have sex with a 15 year old. I believe that everywhere in the US it is illegal for someone age 18+ to have sex with someone 13 or younger.
Interesting. The more you know. I guess my original point still stands. Pedophilia, being the attraction to prepubescent children, would certainly not be consensual, so we can safely assume homosexuality and pedophilia, even if both sexual deviant (though I do not believe homosexuality is) are not similar enough to face the same punishments/treatment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
Nonsense! Where did you get that idea??
I think I do know where you're coming from of course. Many hyper-religious movements formed shortly after the Protestant Reformation. A long list of sexual practices became taboo. This spilled over into the USA in a big way because so many of those who came here to colonize were those same hyper-religious folks. Puritanistic rules on sexuality have been quite persistent in the history of the United States. I believe that several states still have laws on the books prohibiting any sexual position other than missionary position and specifically prohibiting quite a few things that most couples today consider normal and healthy.
More importantly, the status of such things as sinful -- that's nowhere to be found in the Bible. Clearly procreation was the primary purpose God had in mind, but he never once said that non-procreative sex was sinful. Women and men were also clearly designed to bond together deeply through sexual intercourse. A whole lot of emotional, neurochemical and physiological things happen when two people engage in sex. I don't think God did that by accident.
There are or were anti-adultery laws on the books in all 50 states. Early on in US history, conviction of adultery could carry the death penalty in some places. I live in Illinois. The laws against adultery are generally ignored, but if convicted you could serve a prison sentence of up to one year. I think we probably should prosecute adulterers. The fact that we never do means prosecuting homosexuals would be completely hypocritical. But ideally, both of these things should be illegal in my opinion.
Homosexuals have the same emotional, neuro-chemical, and physiological reactions as heterosexuals do during sex. So did he do that on accident indeed?
Adultery is a different thing from homosexuality. Homosexuality is just the attraction to members of the same sex. Adultery is more or less, sexual dishonesty. Generally, we call this cheating and it really only applies to married people. Marriage is a social contract. Adultery is then the violation of the contract. So while I think it's excessive to actually send someone to jail for adultery, legal punishment is justified. Homosexuality however has no such justification. There is nothing currently illegal about it (which as I understand it is the problem you have) and outside of religious texts, no reason to consider it unethical or wrong in anyway. So how do you justify treating them in the same ways?
To help my case: murder is wrong. Assault is wrong. Both are similar, and arguably, a murder is just an assault that went too far. We can sensibly justify the death penalty to murdering someone. But we could not possibly justify capital punishment for someone who got in a fight at the park and broke some guys nose. They are similar crimes, sure, but being similar alone is not enough to assume they deserve the exact same form of criminal punishment. So pair this to the fact that there appears to be no sensible reason to even consider homosexuality/homosexual sex a crime, even if it was, adulterers and pedophiles are doing something that is objectively worse and should receive different punishments.
What then, want, expect to happen ?_______ Everything in this system is temporary. What is permanent will be the soon coming 1000-year governmental rule by Christ Jesus when human imperfection will be no more, and mankind's leanings will be as God originally intended. Expect that mankind will have perfect human health having a perfectly sound, heart, mind and body as God had originally made man.
Where did you get the idea that the Bible's hell is eternal ?
You don't want Bible quotes, yet you are saying biblical hell is eternal, why ?
' Caesar ' does Not have to pass any laws to govern Christians because genuine Christians already obey God as ruler.
Only when ' Caesar ' tries to force Christians to break God's law then Christians obey God as ruler rather than man.
Christian subjection to ' Caesar ' law is relative in subjection to God's absolute or superior law.
There are those on this forum who state they are Christian who repeat about eternal dam nation and being in hell forever. I made no claim of what the Bible defines hell but parroted what others claim.
To all those who posted their thoughts on the subject, thanks
Like I said, any 'consent' is likely driven from coercion. And it's not legally consent either, since you have to be an adult to consent legally. When I said an argument could be made, I wasn't really talking about the more serious cases. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the legal definition of pedophilia is sex with a minor, which can be a 12 year old and a 40 year old, which would never have consent, but also a 22 year old and a 17 year old which could quite possibly have consent. Now, I know the social definition of pedophilia generally involves a younger child and an adult, and not a teenage who is nearly an adult with an adult, but the arguments I was referring to would in fact deal with the latter, not the first.
I probably shouldn't have even added that tidbit though. Creates the wrong idea.
Pedophilia would not be the case with a 22 year old and a 17 year old. Pedophilia by definition involves a child, and a child is defined as someone who has not yet reached puberty.
I'm not sure, but I don't believe pedophilia is used as a legal term, but they are arrested on exploitation/age of consent laws.
Age of consent laws may come into play with the 22 year old and 17 year, but differ by regions. For example in Canada the laws are here.
EDIT Just saw Hammetime's post...so mine is kind of a repeat
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
