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 NAMBLA was kicked out of the LGBT movement because of their beliefs.
As for pedophilia, wasn't Mary just a child when your god knocked her up?
Historians suggest that she was around 14. Joseph was likely around 30. Grown men marrying teenagers was custom back then; still is in that part of the world actually.
Historians suggest that she was around 14. Joseph was likely around 30. Grown men marrying teenagers was custom back then; still is in that part of the world actually.
So men marrying children is a true biblical marriage.
Why aren't the bible thumpers going on about returning to that tradition?
So men marrying children is a true biblical marriage.
Why aren't the bible thumpers going on about returning to that tradition?
Same reason they don't care about people eating shellfish. It doesn't bother them. Gay people are 'icky' though, so they pick and choose something from the Bible and use that to prove a point, despite ignoring everything else the Bible tells them (like loving your neighbor, which I always thought was a pretty important part in Christianity, but I guess the bit about not being gay stood out more...).
Same reason they don't care about people eating shellfish. It doesn't bother them. Gay people are 'icky' though, so they pick and choose something from the Bible and use that to prove a point, despite ignoring everything else the Bible tells them (like loving your neighbor, which I always thought was a pretty important part in Christianity, but I guess the bit about not being gay stood out more...).
When the state tells a parent it is ok for a man to marry your young child because your child consents to it and your parental rights are gone because of equality rights then maybe many will understand where this is going.... to HELL..
Aw cute, you're just the latest poster to bring up an uneducated point that has been thoroughly rebutted with irrefutable information. What will you say next? The Bible says it's wrong? Ooo, how about, "What's next, people can marry animals?" Or let me guess, you think "them gays" are going to try to convert you with their agenda!
Let me guess, you're a "Christian" who believes it's immoral because of a few passages you poorly interpreted and ran with it, yet you ignore all these other "sins" that are also just as wrong. If it were 1960, you'd be so mad that "the blacks" are getting their rights too! Time waaaarp!
Not to hijack the thread, but let me reverse this a little.
Question for those who oppose SSM.
Why do you care?
-snip-
If your response is "Well it's because of religion, or it's because of that slippery slope fantasy" then do you admit that you are at the very least being extremely arrogant to think that your opinions and your beliefs should be allowed to dictate the way other people live their own lives?
If you're going to automatically disallow the line of reasoning used by anyone who supports same-sex marriage, that seems to meet the definition of a loaded question. Can you provide proof that the "slippery slope" theory does NOT apply, in American society? (To do so, you will have to show where the "slide" would definitely stop... where the bus of increasing liberalism will finally park... which is about the only thing you could do to refute the claim that, because American society has been liberalizing steadily for a while, it will continue to do so indefinitely into the future. The point of this thread was to determine where that stopping point would be located, and thus far, I'm not convinced that there is a set point beyond which American society will never be permitted to liberalize.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by txdave35
I'm actually quite informed, and I see the real agenda going on now that gays have some political power. I see things like Christian business owners being forced to close shop if they dare hold onto traditional morals and speak out against an act that goes against the laws of nature. It's nothing more than a power grab through intimidation. Besides, the pope is not saying that he approves of homosexuality.
The issue is a lot bigger than just equal rights.
Dave, I'd rep you 1,000 times if I could. Rock on, brother!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus
Like how the Christians/Religious have been trying to do as well?
Yes, because when they are shown to be the bigots they are, people will stop patronizing their business. Why give money to a known bigot, if he/she is actively using his earned money (from me) to support bigotry?
So, they will be forced to close up shop, because their customer base will shrink.
And that's the free market. I would never stand in the way of people voting with their feet... or their wallets. Heaven knows, I try to do exactly that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose
JC Penneys. Boycotted for having gays in their ads, and hiring Ellen.
Home Depot boycotted for having benefits for same sex couples, and giving to equality groups.
General mills for having a pro SSM stance.
Betty crocker for baking cakes for SSM.
Starbucks for pro SSM stance.
Want more?
You must be kidding. Comparing a mom-and-pop operation to a national-scale chain business or big-name business?! This is why people with brains will never take liberals seriously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose
And yet they made wedding cakes for second marriages (sin). I'm willing to bet they made wedding cakes for people of other religions (sin). Only homosexual sin seemed to matter. Pick and choose, pick and choose.
Look, get it right for once. Second marriages are not always sinful - it depends upon the conditions of that divorce. There are two permissible cases for divorce in the New Testament, arguably three... but for sure two. They are: sexual unfaithfulness (adultery), and the non-Christian partner in a marriage between a Christian and a non-Christian leaving the relationship. Divorce is not commanded for those, nor is it even suggested... it is permitted. As in, God essentially says "I'm not going to say you must, or should, get divorced if you're on the receiving end of either of those two things, but if you do get divorced on account of such, you haven't earned any black marks in my book".
Someone who gets divorced on account of one or both of those conditions is free to remarry without guilt nor condemnation.
And what about someone who is getting married for the second time because he/she was widowed? A girl I once dated had gotten married and then she died at age 29 from ovarian cancer. I'm guessing her husband was around her age. Supposing he meets someone else eventually and wants to marry her. Maybe he's in his mid to late 30's at that time. For him, it's the second marriage. But since his first marriage went " 'til death do us part", it's perfectly fine for him to get married again.
So CONSIDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES before you rebuke anyone who is getting married for the second time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taratova
Nothing new on the earth.. Pedophilia has been around a long time.. many men had child lovers in the early centuries on this earth.. it was accepted.
North American Man Boy Love Association is next in line to gain their equal rights... gays marched with them in parades for equal rights.. nothing new or shocking..
Glad to have you on board. You're right, to an extent at least. I think that NAMBLA will be waiting a good long while to get its equal rights... certain other plateaus will have to be reached first. Here are the steps of "acceptance", the way I see it:
1) Gay marriage
2) Polygamy
3) Reduction or removal of the "age of consent"
4) Marriage between two "children" (even if they're not exactly little kids)
After all four of these, NAMBLA will have a shot. But I do believe it's going to take a loooooooong time. And you never know... the liberals might just decide to draw the line in the sand after reaching a certain level of permissivity which even they would deem dangerous... such that some of the four things I just listed will never come to pass. (Right now it seems, by "slippery slope" theory which we all know is true even if some of us choose to deny it for the sake of appeasing the rest of the barking dog chorus, that all four will eventually be legal in the USA. After that, NAMBLA will wedge in to make a play for #5.)
You must be kidding. Comparing a mom-and-pop operation to a national-scale chain business or big-name business?! This is why people with brains will never take liberals seriously.
Look, get it right for once. Second marriages are not always sinful - it depends upon the conditions of that divorce. There are two permissible cases for divorce in the New Testament, arguably three... but for sure two. They are: sexual unfaithfulness (adultery), and the non-Christian partner in a marriage between a Christian and a non-Christian leaving the relationship. Divorce is not commanded for those, nor is it even suggested... it is permitted. As in, God essentially says "I'm not going to say you must, or should, get divorced if you're on the receiving end of either of those two things, but if you do get divorced on account of such, you haven't earned any black marks in my book".
Someone who gets divorced on account of one or both of those conditions is free to remarry without guilt nor condemnation.
And what about someone who is getting married for the second time because he/she was widowed? A girl I once dated had gotten married and then she died at age 29 from ovarian cancer. I'm guessing her husband was around her age. Supposing he meets someone else eventually and wants to marry her. Maybe he's in his mid to late 30's at that time. For him, it's the second marriage. But since his first marriage went " 'til death do us part", it's perfectly fine for him to get married again.
So CONSIDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES before you rebuke anyone who is getting married for the second time.
Please follow the discussion you comment on. The poster I was responding to said that boycotts are wrong, I simply showed them that both sides do it.
As for the second marriage issue. Can you show that the bakery interviewed every couple to assure they had biblical reason for divorce? Did they interview to assure the bride was a virgin? Did they assure themselves that there was no pre-marital sex?
No.
In the not-too-distant future, I am confident that gay marriage will be legal and accepted by most. Anyone who has spent 15 minutes with high school students (and future voters) knows it's inevitable.
I am also confident that people will not be legally allowed to marry animals, mothers and fathers will not be married to their sons and daughters, and adults will not be marrying children. None of those are in any way connected to the legality of gay (adult) people being allowed to marry people that they love.
Our straight marriages will not be threatened and we will all be just fine.
During my life I have had a number of wives...I have been living with a female since I was 17 years old...I have just turned 63....The last wife I stayed with for over 27 years...I have four wonderful adult children from that union and I still get along well with their mother. There were older conservative people who viewed my union with contempt and loathing because we were NOT married....all those who were married are now all divorced...
Frankly I don't give a damn about formal marriage...I don't need a church or the state to have control in any manner who I live with or who I create children with...I made sure I registered all of my kids in my surname...and they all carry my name....If I could go back in time I would never marry....I have no use for the institution. So I guess the way I look at same sex marriage is WHAT THE HELL DO THEY NEED TO DO THAT FOR?
Marriage is some sort of feeble attempt at sucking up to the system and being "respectable" and having "benefits"...and so-called marital "rights" - I can have all these things without getting a stamp of approval from some priest or judge at city hall....
I just think that gays who want to get married are fools...They are free from governmental control as un married people - WHY do they want to give up this freedom and become wards of the state or church?
I don't get it................Freedom is better than being controlled.
Isn't that what some call "living in sin?"
Every time you fornicated, you made Baby Jesus cry.
The sex lives of any 2 consenting adults is none of my business.
Yep, until the time comes to force an unwanted association between heterosexuality and homosexuality.
If you really want to keep your nose out of other people's business, why don't you start by coming up with a word for same-sex marriage that isn't the same as the one used for marriage between a man and a woman?
If you had your own word for same-sex marriage, you could really keep your nose out of other people's business, but this has never about keeping out of other people's business, has it?
No, the whole point to same-sex marriage is to invade what has always been the business of men and women.
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.
