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.
Nothing Immoral about interracial marriage? Ha. Maybe not NOW but take a look in past decades...
It was never immoral.
Quote:
And I don't think you understand discrimination...
- NOBODY is allowed to muder...
NOBODY.... NOBODY IS ALLOWED TO MURDER.... NOBODY..... NO ONE.... NO ONE... NOBODY....
It doesn't matter if you're Black.... It doesn't matter if you're Muslim... It doesn't matter if you're Straight.... It's doesn't matter if you're Gay....
That is not discrimination....
Ok.
Quote:
YOU are discriminating when you say "Only Straight people are allowed to marriage"
There is one really really big question I am interested in knowing
Why Do you Care if a dude marrys another dude?
I am not discriminating at all.
Murder is immoral.
Homosexuality is immoral.
Everything you said about murder applies to homosexuality.
Like I said, it is not about civil rights. It's about morality.
I care about it because any immoral act if allowed to propagate through a society weakens it.
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
So declared the Virginia judge who sentenced Mildred and Richard Loving to jail for being married. Clearly the attitude was that interracial marriage went against God's will, and therefore was immoral.
People were constantly invoking either "God's will" or "God's laws" to justify anti-miscegenation laws, just as they did to justify slavery, just as they did to justify Jim Crow,
But they were wrong. The Bible says nothing about interracial marriage being wrong.
Quote:
just as they do to justify discriminating against homosexuals.
The Bible does, however, explicitly condemn homosexuality in both the Old and New Testaments.
Quote:
Intermarriage between whites and blacks is repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is abhorrent and repugnant to the very principles of Saxon government. It is subversive of social peace. It is destructive of moral supremacy.
-Representative Seaborn Roddenbery (Georgia) 1912
Ok, so the guy was wrong. That statement was merely his opinion.
Quote:
Substitute "gay marriage" for "intermarriage between whites and blacks" and you've got the standard homophobe's argument (in more florid language).
Uh huh. I see you've bought the homosexual 'civil rights' agenda hook, line, and sinker.
Quote:
There are even people today who argue that mixed-race relationships (sexual, marriage) are immoral and against God. Thankfully they're on the fringe, where you are heading.
No, the rest of the country is headed towards the fringe.
Unbridled homosexuality is a marker of a country's downfall. It's proven over and over again throughout history.
Good thing Government is there to tell us how to live good Moral lives And when your children are learning about Gay Penguins and where baby comes from, sex, etc. don't come crying to me about big bad Government....
Well, I hate to get into a God debate here, but the following needs to be said. One thing that is for sure (and documented) is that the bible does talk about crossdressing.
God also likes to "test" people by telling them to kill their children.
God telling Abraham to kill his son Isaac Gen 22:1-14 KJV And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am. [v. 2] And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.
My point is that true spirituality does not come from religious dogma. It comes from within. Only those that are weak-in-spirit need a "guide book" to help them do and know what is right. This is why the weak-in-spirit are fooled by verses in the bible that clearly came from "the other side" and NOT from "God". Make no mistake about it; the viewpoint of both sides (good and evil) are in the bible. Only those that know the true light can see the difference.
And what either of these things has to do with homosexuality is beyond me.
And what either of these things has to do with homosexuality is beyond me.
Simple. The bible is your reference book for morality. Therefore, I showed you two passages out of the bible that totally contradicts our society's standards of morality. After that, I had this to say:
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbancharlotte
My point is that true spirituality does not come from religious dogma. It comes from within. Only those that are weak-in-spirit need a "guide book" to help them do and know what is right. This is why the weak-in-spirit are fooled by verses in the bible that clearly came from "the other side" and NOT from "God". Make no mistake about it; the viewpoint of both sides (good and evil) are in the bible. Only those that know the true light can see the difference.
Now, if you can't understand the above quote, there is nothing I can say further to help you understand. I have explained things as plain as I can without insulting you personally or insulting your faith/belief system.
As for this senator, he is just running his mouth for all of those North Carolinians that think just like you "Chris". Its called job security.
How about leaving the dusty bibles on the shelf. And forget about the legal loopholes. Why not approach this from a evolutionary biological point of view? How long have dudes and babes been doing each other, and still after all these millennia, evolution has not granted people of the same sex to biologically produce offspring. A guy can't impregnate another guy and a woman can't impregnate another woman. I'm just wondering. I could care less about the debate, but that's always something I've never seen brought up. I have a feeling that until dudes start popping out babies, a lot of people, like this politician will never accept lgbt people. Sorry if this offends anyone.
Well, let's consider another evolutionary biological angle--a significant percentage of the babies being popped out by hetero couples are gay. They didn't choose to be gay; they just are. Homosexual behavior has even been observed among some animal species. Apparently evolution has not seen fit to eliminate homosexuality through natural selection. Or said from a religious point of view, God made homosexuals the way they are, and he's still making them.
So who are you (or anyone else) to question whether they should be "accepted" or not?
Everything you said about murder applies to homosexuality.
We've seen it all now!!
Murder takes the life of another person. How is another person harmed by homosexuality (by which I presume you mean 'homosexual sex', since homosexuality is simply a state of being. Many homosexuals are virgins or celibate)? How are you, or anyone, harmed by two men or two women loving each other? Zero, that's how. In fact, most of the New Testament preaches loving, not hating.
Quote:
Originally Posted by comitatus1
And what either of these things has to do with homosexuality is beyond me.
Definitely a red herring.
No, you are the one claiming that everything in the Bible is how laws should be right now. This poster is saying that the Bible condones killing one's children (in addition to banning the eating of pork and shellfish, shaving one's beard, wearing two kinds of cloth, working on Sunday, etc). You don't get to pick just which verses you follow (you either tak ALL of Leviticus or none of it), if you're going to claim that you "live by the Bible", but most importantly, you don't get to make other people live by the Holy Book of a religion they don't follow. Suppose an Orthodox Jew told you that he was offended by your eating pork; it was in his Bible that it was a sin and therefore he was going to pass a law saying nobody could eat pork because it was religiously offensive. This is precisely what you are doing when you are claiming that your Holy Book has jurisdiction over people who don't follow your religion.
If someone tried to force YOU into having homosexual sex, I would 1000% agree that your rights were being curtailed. However, what consenting adults do in their private lives (and is happening all around you at this moment, without your even being aware of it) is not your place to condemn. If you want to be somewhere that one religion's Holy Book dictates the law, move to the Middle East. Hope it works out for you--they actually execute homosexuals there. You'll fit in just fine.
How about leaving the dusty bibles on the shelf. And forget about the legal loopholes. Why not approach this from a evolutionary biological point of view? How long have dudes and babes been doing each other, and still after all these millennia, evolution has not granted people of the same sex to biologically produce offspring. A guy can't impregnate another guy and a woman can't impregnate another woman. I'm just wondering. I could care less about the debate, but that's always something I've never seen brought up. I have a feeling that until dudes start popping out babies, a lot of people, like this politician will never accept lgbt people. Sorry if this offends anyone.
This one's fairly straight forward. The evolutionary purpose of homosexuals isn't that they directly propogate, or the trend would have been to creating processes to allow for homosexual unions to bear children.
Science on the other hand has found a number of different genetic responses to the homosexual gene that show a beneficial nature for their inclusion. Examples of this are seen in the over 1,500 different species of animals that are seen to exhibit homosexual behavior in the wild. There are examples of homosexual couples being used as surrogate parents, supporters of the pack, etc. in animals.
Humans on the other hand, there's much more technical arguments to be made for their existence. One of which being that science has found that direct female relatives of homosexuals are more fertile than their peers. This goes to give a genetic advantage to the spread of the trait. There are a number of other reasons, of which I've left a few scientific articles relaying this information to help explain them and basically to leave scientific citations and proof of what I'm referring to.
"Evolution" has also given rise to beings intelligent enough to bypass natural conception (artificial insemination). This fact alone makes the whole "gays can't reproduce" argument moot.
"Evolution" has also given rise to beings intelligent enough to bypass natural conception (artificial insemination). This fact alone makes the whole "gays can't reproduce" argument moot.
Yeah, that and the fact that the argument is really stupid in the first place. As an example, we have mules--cross between a horse and a donkey, and it can't reproduce. Yet people "accept" them, and they even perform quite admirably in service of humans. We also have many seedless fruit varieties (with utmost respect to my gay friends, no pun intended, wink, wink). People accept these fruits, eating them voraciously while knowing they can't reproduce.
That all you got?
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.
And when your children are learning about Gay Penguins and where baby comes from, sex, etc. don't come crying to me about big bad Government....
