[HandBanana]

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by SCGranny

1) Yes, they ARE actually being stopped - gays are not allowed to have the same governmental and societal rights of other married couples; the right to assign benificiary and end-of-life legalities, the right to even visit each other in the hospital because their spouses "are not family"; even, in some states, the right to equally share domiciles as well as - if the contractural arrangement fails or is violated - the right to a redress of grievances and an equal sharing of the benefits attained during the relationship/agreement in divorce court.

Wrong. Just get married the same way heteros do: to a member of the opposite gender. To state that "gays don't..." is incorrect. The issue is that same-gender couples can't marry.

Your argument is flawed.

2) No, I don't support a special dispensation for ANY group - I support equality across the board, where any consenting adult can marry -i.e., enter into a legally binding and mutually-agreeable contract - any other consenting adult, legally, with all of the rights and responsibilities - as well as the consequences for violatng that contract - thereto.

Currently, any consenting adult can legally marry with all rights and responsibilities to another consenting adult. What is your poblem? We just agree with the fact that marriage has always been a male/female thing. It was created as such, and it has largely been about procreation. Of course, not all married couples procreate, but that's a huge part of it.

The reason DH and I got married was not passionate love or sexual attraction (although those were present) but because we both wanted to share the responsibilities and benefits of a mutually-agreeable contractural commitment. He put me and the chlidren on his insurance, we made each other our beneficiaries in our life insurance policies, we both made wills and living wills that provided for each other's involvement in very personal decisions, and even developed an agreement that delineated who would be responsible for what in the event of a dissolution of the marriage. These sorts of things cannot be done in gay marriage.

Nobody is saying a gay person cannot marry someone of the opposite gender. As you stated, it doesn't have to be about love or attraction.

[jessep28]

Wow...I'm sure none of those passages are being taken out of context. (sarcasm)

[HandBanana]

You think you can just say "context" and play it as a wild card and that will simply stop discussion?
Thing is, Im not 14 years old.
Back up your assertion.
Cuz that graphic cites chapter and verse, so your work is already halfway done for you.
Now back up your assertions and play apologist to your ancient book of wizards and ****.
And none of this "b-b-b-b-b thats the Old Testament and that doesnt count anymore except when we want it to!" nonsense.

Problem is, most Christians have no idea whats in 2/3 of the Bible. Just the parts that already match up with their stunted worldview. They conveniently forget how brutal, savage, and idiotic wide swaths of it are.

Say what you will about Calvinist, but at least he's got follow-through and consistency with regard to his religious beliefs.

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by HandBanana

You think you can just say "context" and play it as a wild card and that will simply stop discussion?
Thing is, Im not 14 years old.
Back up your assertion.
Cuz that graphic cites chapter and verse, so your work is already halfway done for you.
Now back up your assertions and play apologist to your ancient book of wizards and ****.
And none of this "b-b-b-b-b thats the Old Testament and that doesnt count anymore except when we want it to!" nonsense.

Problem is, most Christians have no idea whats in 2/3 of the Bible. Just the parts that already match up with their stunted worldview. They conveniently forget how brutal, savage, and idiotic wide swaths of it are.

Say what you will about Calvinist, but at least he's got follow-through and consistency with regard to his religious beliefs.

The thing is....that IS the OT..and doesn't apply anymore. It was for a limited time, for a certain group of people -- the ancient Israelites. Christ is the end of the Law, and we no longer live by that. Nevermind the fact that none of those passages say ANYTHING about a male/male or female/female marriage. And the fact that God allowed, for a time, a man to have multiple wives doesn't mean it's commanded or endorsed for us today. And nowhere in the Bible does it command or speak positively of the idea of concubines. It records men and their concubines...but it doesn't say it's a good thing.

And thank you for the compliment.....I think.

[jessep28]

I try not to feed the trolls if I can help it

[Senrab+Omaha=MissingChica]

Question to all those who are using scripture as a shield for being bigots: are you so stringent on all of the Bible's rules for how one should live their lives?

The bible strictly prohibits the consumption of pork and shellfish, I hope no one posting negative/judgemental items likes shrimp and bacon....

It also mentions not wearing clothes made of two different materials. So no suits, blended fabrics, or synthetics for that matter....

Doesn't it also mention if a women enters into a physical altercation, her hands should be cut off?

Lying is a sin. I've never met anyone who never lies. Please introduce me if you know someone who doesn't. I would like to meet them.

One should not owe money to anyone. This one is hilarious when you look @ the American economy and how it is dependent on debt. Riddle me that please.

One should not dwell on material items. If you have anything in your house outside of items that are essential to living, then please explain.


Also I hope non of you are Catholic. I do not see any of you speaking out to your own church, who for generations, have allowed the cover up and systematic abuse of children. Even satanists believe in the protection of youth because of innocence.

Using religion as a shield for personal beliefs is dangerous, and not righteous. This, and the modern church structure is why I have become agnostic in my old age. Please do not clutter this forum w/opinion. I have said some controversial things, but nothing based on division or hate. And until I hear some clarification on why you all sin, yet will cast out another fellow sinner for no other reason outside of personal beliefs (didn't the Jewish carpenter speak of forgiveness and not passing judgement, please remind Mel that his savior is Jewish j/k!) then shut it.

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by Senrab+Omaha=MissingChica

Question to all those who are using scripture as a shield for being bigots: are you so stringent on all of the Bible's rules for how one should live their lives?

The bible strictly prohibits the consumption of pork and shellfish, I hope no one posting negative/judgemental items likes shrimp and bacon....

It also mentions not wearing clothes made of two different materials. So no suits, blended fabrics, or synthetics for that matter....

Doesn't it also mention if a women enters into a physical altercation, her hands should be cut off?

Lying is a sin. I've never met anyone who never lies. Please introduce me if you know someone who doesn't. I would like to meet them.

One should not owe money to anyone. This one is hilarious when you look @ the American economy and how it is dependent on debt. Riddle me that please.

One should not dwell on material items. If you have anything in your house outside of items that are essential to living, then please explain.


Also I hope non of you are Catholic. I do not see any of you speaking out to your own church, who for generations, have allowed the cover up and systematic abuse of children. Even satanists believe in the protection of youth because of innocence.

Using religion as a shield for personal beliefs is dangerous, and not righteous. This, and the modern church structure is why I have become agnostic in my old age. Please do not clutter this forum w/opinion. I have said some controversial things, but nothing based on division or hate. And until I hear some clarification on why you all sin, yet will cast out another fellow sinner for no other reason outside of personal beliefs (didn't the Jewish carpenter speak of forgiveness and not passing judgement, please remind Mel that his savior is Jewish j/k!) then shut it.

You would do well to learn the meaning of context.

[HandBanana]

Originally Posted by jessep28

I try not to feed the trolls if I can help it

Everyone that disagrees with you isnt a "troll" you nonce.
I have nearly as many posts as you and way more rep points.

[Senrab+Omaha=MissingChica]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

The thing is....that IS the OT..and doesn't apply anymore. It was for a limited time, for a certain group of people -- the ancient Israelites. Christ is the end of the Law, and we no longer live by that. Nevermind the fact that none of those passages say ANYTHING about a male/male or female/female marriage. And the fact that God allowed, for a time, a man to have multiple wives doesn't mean it's commanded or endorsed for us today. And nowhere in the Bible does it command or speak positively of the idea of concubines. It records men and their concubines...but it doesn't say it's a good thing.

And thank you for the compliment.....I think.

How is the OT not relavent. The past should be relavent so you don't repeat the mistakes of it. Also that was your Christ's religion, as I don't believe he worshiped himself. It is part of your religion, and should not be ignored completely.

Ignore the first half of a history book, the 2nd half would make no sense.

Also how much of the NT scripture was dedicated to anti-homosexual rules. Is it in proportion to how the churches use it now to politicize? I honestly don't know and am curious.