No Marriage for everyone! (government, vote, homosexual, separation)

[arizona sunset]

Originally Posted by sto1986

It is annoying when people act like everything is so black and white, liberal or conservative. What ever happened to the middle?

Despite everything that's been said, I haven't heard one valid reason against gay marriage that is political or legal, and does it really matter what the religious reason's are, our legal system is suppose to be separate. If we are going to rely so much on the religious views of the majority, how we much different from places in the middle east in that regard?

Well it is kind of hard to determine a "middle ground", when liberals are out killing living breathing human babies in the name of "freedom." I'm glad though that you feel that when it comes to the murder of an entire generation, there is indeed room for the argument to swing in both directions. Yes, that is indeed very reassuring to me. Call me crazy, but I have this sneaky suspicion that Hitler felt the same way as you. That makes one feel all warm inside.

If you actually took the time, did a little research, and went back into American history, you would quickly understand that it was Roe v Wade that was pretty much conservative’s final straw with the Dems. I agree, not everything is soooooo "black and white." But with the big issues (i.e. abortion, gay rights, etc.) that finalize whether you are a conservative, or a democrat, there is absolutely nothing "conservacrat" about it. Dems sold their souls to the liberals in order to save their ignorant party (re: BAILOUT!!!!! How many are we at now!! Mmmmm I think I just mortgaged my great, great, great, great, grandchildren’s lives!!), and conservatives had no choice but to swing hard to the Reps, such as they are. Good luck with that theory though.....I would love to hear how you could possibly have a faith in Christianity, and then take your teenage daughter to an abortion clinic? But I guess we all have your weaknesses from time to time!!

Hey! What do you know! We agree that there should indeed be a separation between church and state. (Even though it is pretty obvious that a "Christian" government would more than likely be your best bet considering the left has spokeswomen like Rosie O'Donnell). In any case, if you came into this discussion looking for me to say something to the affect of "These here dirty homo's shouldjusta keep to their nasty selves!' you are in the wrong forum. But I guess if we use your logic, then we should go ahead and allow all individuals the right to marry whatever, they wish! Way to go! I've been saying that same thing for quite some time now!

The way I see it; "I haven't heard one valid reason against [un-hetero] marriage that is political or legal, and does it really matter what the religious reason's are, our legal system is suppose to be separate. If we are going to rely so much on the religious views of the majority, how we much different from places in the middle east in that regard?"

This is only indicative of the type of hypocritical rhetoric that liberals use over and over again. For such an enlightened, and educated group of people, you would really assume that they would come up with new material from time to time.

[arizona sunset]

Originally Posted by sray017

I would like to see a citation for this quote; as I believe it was either a complete fabrication that he said that or it was entirely taken out of context.

[/font][/color]

It's also very unfair to pick and choose which acts that the Bible refers to as sin are still sins in this day and age.

I challenge you to look in your closet and not find a single item made of two different fabrics. Or maybe next time you're out and see someone eating shellfish stone them to death as was the punishment for such sin.

It's very presumptuous and arrogant to assume that you know how God actually intended for the Bible to be written or that you know His definition of "traditional family."

Do you honestly think that God doesn't encourage love and commitment between two people? Isn't God love?

Well if you, by now, do not believe that Obama's economic, political, and social agendas are intended to give the minority in this country power over the "gun and religion clinging" majority, than it begs the question if; You are either a) living in blissful ignorance, or b) in a bubble with no media distractions for the past year. I don't mean to offend, but do you really need a quote for that? Wait!!! I would have a quote for you, but Obama's website (LOL!!! Got to love the name!), "changed" every single section a few days after the election. Mmmmm....maybe that was the "change" he was referring too....It all makes sense now!

I actually believe "It's very presumptuous and arrogant to assume that you know how God actually intended for the Bible to be written or that you know His definition of 'traditional family'." Considering the fact that Sodom and Gomorrah were "utterly" destroyed in large part because of homosexuality, than I think it is safe to say that if a homosexual man asked Jesus out for a night on the town, he would more than likely respectfully decline. But hey, believe what you will! I really don't think I'm going out on a limb on that one though. I also think it is safe to assume that when God refers to the traditional family he is speaking of one man and one women, when in fact the only two Christian denominations that that actually claim direct priesthood and doctrinal lineage to Jesus, are the most avid supports of traditional marriage, and denounce homosexuality at all times.

Are you sure we read the same religious text? I don't remember the Bible coming out and saying that the practice of incest is wrong either. But it is a widely known fact that several prophets throughout the Old Testament were definitely involved in polygamist relationships, but were somehow still revelators for God. Mmmmmmm. It does however state that anyone that has "relations' with animals will be "cast out". But it speaks nothing of legal relationships regarding marriage with those same animals. Not to mention, you so eloquently left out the fact that the whole purpose of the Atonement, was to cast out the old Mosaic Law. I'm in no way "picking and choosing". If you have a problem the ministry of Christ, I am the wrong person to take the up with. "Shellfish and fabric" laws were fulfilled when Christ was crucified. Perhaps you missed the slight fact that Christ instituted a higher law when he came. I know how hidden, such blatant facts may be! Geez, that New Testament can be a toughie at times!

[Joe Bama!]

Originally Posted by arizona sunset

Well if you, by now, do not believe that Obama's economic, political, and social agendas are intended to give the minority in this country power over the "gun and religion clinging" majority, than it begs the question if; You are either a) living in blissful ignorance, or b) in a bubble with no media distractions for the past year. I don't mean to offend, but do you really need a quote for that? Wait!!! I would have a quote for you, but Obama's website (LOL!!! Got to love the name!), "changed" every single section a few days after the election. Mmmmm....maybe that was the "change" he was referring too....It all makes sense now!

I actually believe "It's very presumptuous and arrogant to assume that you know how God actually intended for the Bible to be written or that you know His definition of 'traditional family'." Considering the fact that Sodom and Gomorrah were "utterly" destroyed in large part because of homosexuality, than I think it is safe to say that if a homosexual man asked Jesus out for a night on the town, he would more than likely respectfully decline. But hey, believe what you will! I really don't think I'm going out on a limb on that one though. I also think it is safe to assume that when God refers to the traditional family he is speaking of one man and one women, when in fact the only two Christian denominations that that actually claim direct priesthood and doctrinal lineage to Jesus, are the most avid supports of traditional marriage, and denounce homosexuality at all times.

Are you sure we read the same religious text? I don't remember the Bible coming out and saying that the practice of incest is wrong either. But it is a widely known fact that several prophets throughout the Old Testament were definitely involved in polygamist relationships, but were somehow still revelators for God. Mmmmmmm. It does however state that anyone that has "relations' with animals will be "cast out". But it speaks nothing of legal relationships regarding marriage with those same animals. Not to mention, you so eloquently left out the fact that the whole purpose of the Atonement, was to cast out the old Mosaic Law. I'm in no way "picking and choosing". If you have a problem the ministry of Christ, I am the wrong person to take the up with. "Shellfish and fabric" laws were fulfilled when Christ was crucified. Perhaps you missed the slight fact that Christ instituted a higher law when he came. I know how hidden, such blatant facts may be! Geez, that New Testament can be a toughie at times!

religion has nothing to do with legalizing homosexual marriage. That is a personal belief not a governmental belief. The Church and State are separate now.
I respect your personal beliefs and you have a rigt to live how ever you want. Your Biblical beliefs are meaningful and passionate, but thats about all. This is an issue of discrimination on a group of people. It is unconstitutional and against the fundamentals of our country to deny a particular group of ones civil rights.
It doesn't matter what Jesus, Moses, or Mohammed said.
SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE.

[arizona sunset]

Originally Posted by Gtownoe

Hence, the reason they are all called Christians. These tenets include; pro-traditional family, pro-life, pro-capitalism, etc. So yes, they each do have different doctrinal teachings (i.e. "their own interpretations of the Bible) but when you look past that, their views of the societal world are very much the same.

1) Both of my grandparents are ministers and they are pro-choice. Who are you to say what other Christians believe? "Christian" is just a title. You try to live as Christ lived. That not only deals with abortion, or gay rights...it also has to do with helping the poor, aiding those in need, etc. That is what Jesus went around doing. What does capitalism have to do with being liberal??

"...he wants to create a "welfare state" for our country. I don't know about you, but at least to the religion that I subscribe to, that is a pretty big slap in the face to Christianity."

2) Actually no, that is what Christianity is all about. You don't think Jesus would take from the tax collectors and give to the poor?

"What does it matter if homosexuality was a common practice during the time when the Bible was "written"? First off, the message doesn't change depending on the time in which it was written. And secondly, I find that somewhat hard to believe since the Bible is a conglomeration of many different time periods, compiled into one book. Sure, at the death of Christ, homosexuality was a hot time, but at the beginning (especially) and throughout, I don’t think so."

3) It matters because if it was such a hot topic. And so widely accepted and practiced in ALL of the locations that Jesus traveled too, it would seem that Jesus would have preached against it if he felt it was wrong. Do you not think that its ironic that he did not mention it one time in ALL of his sermons?

I'm interested in hearing your responses to these 3 topics.

Well I'm more than happy to take you up on your challenge. Although I think it is safe to say that even though it seems that my beliefs and convictions have been on trial here (imagine that), the liberal noise machine, that has taken such an obnoxious stance on this forum, has yet to prove a valid or even a semi-discernable argument to refute such basic claims. I guess there is always page nine?

1) I'm sorry, but I really don't understand what you are trying to say. If you are trying to ask if I have ever met "Christian" frauds, like you grandparents? then sadly, I would have to say yes. Believe me, your grandparents will not be the first, or the last, to get a huge ego boost from being "unique" enough to appease both sides. More than likely, they are in it for the money. How very "Christian" of them. Their Christ-like attributes are breathtaking. What is actually staggering though is that sometimes, these types of counterintuitive sideshows, really do believe what they are saying. Now any sane Christian wouldn't stand for this nonsense. I mean, how in the world can someone preach to a congregation to "help the poor and aid those in need", while at the same time find doctors that smash the skulls of newborns and suck their brains out with a vacuum to be cause for celebration. Tell me, is that "trying to live as Christ lived?" Is that what "Jesus went around doing?"

What makes this really warped is that these "ministers" expect the congregation to then pay their bills. This would be one thing if we were talking deep, deep comparative religious doctrine. But we are talking about a commandment made up of four words, and four syllables. It doesn't leave much room for interpretation by the individual. But I guess they figure they are so spiritually in tuned that the regular rules just don't apply to them. A common trait amongst the liberal mindset. Not only that, but if your grandparents have a hard time understanding one of the most basic, and in my opinion, easiest to live commandments; how do they fair with the rest? I'm going to guess that their sermons wouldn't quite make it into the "advanced" category by any means. What makes this even worse is that they make the whole conservative movement look bad, and it only gives the liberal media even more ammunition than they already have. Like I said; they won't be the first, and they won't be the last by any means.

As far as capitalism goes, I thought this would be rather self explanatory. Capitalism has everything to do with personal freedom, personal accountability, and personal choice. Our governments sole and everlasting purpose is to protect our rights. Nothing more. In other words, small government is the best government. Maybe you should read Robert Nozick's "Anarchy, State, and Utopia." It is without a doubt one of the most important books our time. (It is pretty much a handbook on how not to be a 21st century Democrat.) Tell me, (actually, humor me) what Democratic policies are in place now that allow for anything that I have mentioned. Under their way of governing, we WILL be looking at a world where FDR's fully institutionalized vision comes to life. How can one have personal agency to choose, when the government already does that for them? Your right though, liberalism has really nothing to do with capitalism, other than it is the enemy that should be stomped out of the great American experiment.

2) Refer to above post.

3) Well how very presumptuous and arrogant of you to just assume that he did put every sermon he gave in the New Testament. How do you know he did not denounce it in these, or how do you know that it wasn't at one time denounced, but then taken out as time has went along? He also did not denounce incest or polygamy. Does that make them wrong? We can look back and Biblically record the very first Christian prophets as polygamists. But not one, that we have a record of, shows any implication of homosexuality. How do you then go on to explain the theory behind Adam and Eve? Where they not created in God's own image? Your questions are not only hypocritical, but are ignorantly open-ended statements that only lead to more questions that only validate my claim.

[arizona sunset]

Originally Posted by Joe Bama!

religion has nothing to do with legalizing homosexual marriage. That is a personal belief not a governmental belief. The Church and State are separate now.
I respect your personal beliefs and you have a rigt to live how ever you want. Your Biblical beliefs are meaningful and passionate, but thats about all. This is an issue of discrimination on a group of people. It is unconstitutional and against the fundamentals of our country to deny a particular group of ones civil rights.
It doesn't matter what Jesus, Moses, or Mohammed said.
SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE.

This has become old and tiresome! What don't you get form what I'm saying?

I AM FOR GAY MARRIAGE AS LONG AS IT INCLUDES POLYGAMY AND FORMS OF INCEST. IF NOT, THAN IT IS NO LONGER "CONSITUITIONAL"!!!! LOOK AT WHAT YOU SAID, AND NOW APPLY IT TO THOSE TWO GROUPS OF PEOPLE. I QUOTE "THIS IS AN ISSUE OF DISCRIMINATION ON A GROUP(!!!!!!) OF PEOPLE. IT IS UNCONSITUIONAL AND THE FUNDEMNETALS OF OUR COUNTRY TO DENY A PARTICULR GROUP(!!!!!) OF ONES CIVIL RIGHT." UNTIL YOU CAN MAKE ROOM FOR SOME PEOPLE THAT YOU MIGHT NOT FEEL SO COMFORTABLE WITH, THAN YOUR ARGUMENT HAS NO BASE REALITY, AND IS THERFORE HOPELESSLY FLAWED. I'M SORRY, BUT THIS ISN'T QUANTUM PHYSICS!!!!

[Leisesturm]

Conventional marriage has clearly failed a great many men, women and children. Gays IMO have a chance to redefine the institution based on the ability to learn from what has gone right and gone wrong with hetero-sexual marriage. That a significant number of gay men and women want to sign onto marriage as defined in scriptural terms kind of amuses me. I am similarly amused at the number of gay men and women that want to pastor mainline Protestant churches. I don't believe for a minute that having gotten state governments to legalize gay marriage on the same terms as hetero marriage that they wouldn't next take the fight to the mainline Christian churches and attempt to overturn existing statutes for marriage. I also agree that to expand 'marriage' to include gays but to stop there and not allow polygamists is completely wrong. First off polygamy is not synonymous with child rape. True, a subset of polygamists are also pedophiles but what of the millions that are not? Where do you draw the line(s)? Why can there not be marriage for heterosexuals as they defined it and going forward a new definition (and name) for marriage between men and men/women and women and group unions when and if they feel the need for some kind of social title for their lifestyle. A construct that only has a 50% success ratio is too fragile to serve as a basis for so many new and different ways of expression. America is simply too divided for anything to work that requires cooperation. Marriage is good for governments that is why they defacto marry couples after seven years in most places. Some greedy bureaucrats in a few jurisdictions seeing the lost potential in all those loose cannon same sex unions tried to brute force legislation through to bring them to heel. It flabbergasts me that gay groups don't see it for the trap that it is. I hope that gay people do get the right to marry. When that happens I don't want to hear it when it hasn't worked out like they hoped. Not one post in C-D either here or the relationships forum about your impending divorce and why can't you simply go your separate ways now, why do we have to wait a whole freaking year, I just met someone really cute online!? Why do we need lawyers?! $500/mo? You call that alimony?! I have needs!

H

[hula]

Originally Posted by Joe Bama!

I'm engaged right now to my Girl Friend. We are in a hetero sexual relationship (between a man and a woman)
We are getting a civil union because until all people can legally be married in America, no one should get married.
Hetero sexual Civil Unions in solidarity with Homosexual rights to marriage!

Thank you, Joe Bama!!! The world needs more people like you!

[Anonymous Political Junky]

Originally Posted by Joe Bama!

I'm engaged right now to my Girl Friend. We are in a hetero sexual relationship (between a man and a woman)
We are getting a civil union because until all people can legally be married in America, no one should get married.
Hetero sexual Civil Unions in solidarity with Homosexual rights to marriage!

Ok, is this a really early April Fool's Joke? This is just too funny. To each their own but must everyone put all ***** things they do in their lives?

[cuebald]

Originally Posted by arizona sunset

Well I'm more than happy to take you up on your challenge. Although I think it is safe to say that even though it seems that my beliefs and convictions have been on trial here (imagine that), the liberal noise machine, that has taken such an obnoxious stance on this forum, has yet to prove a valid or even a semi-discernable argument to refute such basic claims. I guess there is always page nine?

1) I'm sorry, but I really don't understand what you are trying to say. If you are trying to ask if I have ever met "Christian" frauds, like you grandparents? then sadly, I would have to say yes. Believe me, your grandparents will not be the first, or the last, to get a huge ego boost from being "unique" enough to appease both sides. More than likely, they are in it for the money. How very "Christian" of them. Their Christ-like attributes are breathtaking. What is actually staggering though is that sometimes, these types of counterintuitive sideshows, really do believe what they are saying. Now any sane Christian wouldn't stand for this nonsense. I mean, how in the world can someone preach to a congregation to "help the poor and aid those in need", while at the same time find doctors that smash the skulls of newborns and suck their brains out with a vacuum to be cause for celebration. Tell me, is that "trying to live as Christ lived?" Is that what "Jesus went around doing?"

What makes this really warped is that these "ministers" expect the congregation to then pay their bills. This would be one thing if we were talking deep, deep comparative religious doctrine. But we are talking about a commandment made up of four words, and four syllables. It doesn't leave much room for interpretation by the individual. But I guess they figure they are so spiritually in tuned that the regular rules just don't apply to them. A common trait amongst the liberal mindset. Not only that, but if your grandparents have a hard time understanding one of the most basic, and in my opinion, easiest to live commandments; how do they fair with the rest? I'm going to guess that their sermons wouldn't quite make it into the "advanced" category by any means. What makes this even worse is that they make the whole conservative movement look bad, and it only gives the liberal media even more ammunition than they already have. Like I said; they won't be the first, and they won't be the last by any means.

As far as capitalism goes, I thought this would be rather self explanatory. Capitalism has everything to do with personal freedom, personal accountability, and personal choice. Our governments sole and everlasting purpose is to protect our rights. Nothing more. In other words, small government is the best government. Maybe you should read Robert Nozick's "Anarchy, State, and Utopia." It is without a doubt one of the most important books our time. (It is pretty much a handbook on how not to be a 21st century Democrat.) Tell me, (actually, humor me) what Democratic policies are in place now that allow for anything that I have mentioned. Under their way of governing, we WILL be looking at a world where FDR's fully institutionalized vision comes to life. How can one have personal agency to choose, when the government already does that for them? Your right though, liberalism has really nothing to do with capitalism, other than it is the enemy that should be stomped out of the great American experiment.

2) Refer to above post.

3) Well how very presumptuous and arrogant of you to just assume that he did put every sermon he gave in the New Testament. How do you know he did not denounce it in these, or how do you know that it wasn't at one time denounced, but then taken out as time has went along? He also did not denounce incest or polygamy. Does that make them wrong? We can look back and Biblically record the very first Christian prophets as polygamists. But not one, that we have a record of, shows any implication of homosexuality. How do you then go on to explain the theory behind Adam and Eve? Where they not created in God's own image? Your questions are not only hypocritical, but are ignorantly open-ended statements that only lead to more questions that only validate my claim.

Many words spilled.

I never cease to be amazed that conservatives are not completely supportive of abortions and gay marriages since only liberals want them or would ever participate in them.

If conservatives would just be quiet and let the libs have their way, there would be no more liberal children within a generation or so and the problem would be solved forever.

Silly conservatives.

[Anonymous Political Junky]

Originally Posted by cuebald

Many words spilled.

I never cease to be amazed that conservatives are not completely supportive of abortions and gay marriages since only liberals want them or would ever participate in them.

If conservatives would just be quiet and let the libs have their way, there would be no more liberal children within a generation or so and the problem would be solved forever.

Silly conservatives.

Silly thoughts!!!!