Same-Sex Marriage: A Win-Win Solution (v, supporters, voted, murder)

[Fiyero]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

You really ought to study some theology. You're arguing complete nonsense.

I have studied theology, and understand it better than you obviously. You've presented some of the worst theological arguments I've ever seen. Typical Fundamentalist, who doesn't understand what they believe.

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by Fiyero

He doesn't have a choice that he finds men attractive.

And even the Bible disagrees with your view that everyone can be celibate.

You can choose whom you are intimate with.

In most civilized countries, love is the primary motivator for marriage. I'm sorry that your marriage is loveless, but I think I can understand why.

My marriage is quite full of love. But that's not the point.

[Fiyero]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

You can choose whom you are intimate with.

You're not going to choose to be intimate with a woman if you don't find women attractive. Biblically, that would be wrong since a gay man can not please a woman.

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by Fiyero

I have studied theology, and understand it better than you obviously. You've presented some of the worst theological arguments I've ever seen. Typical Fundamentalist, who doesn't understand what they believe.

Do you understand any of the theological implications of what marriage means?

Do you have a clue about why we tend to get bothered when people suggest it's just a piece of paper?

Originally Posted by Fiyero

You're not going to choose to be intimate with a woman if you don't find women attractive. Biblically, that would be wrong since a gay man can not please a woman.

Biblically, the Bible doesn't address the idea of "orientation". It condemns the behavior. That's it.

[Fiyero]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

Do you understand any of the theological implications of what marriage means?

Do you have a clue about why we tend to get bothered when people suggest it's just a piece of paper?

I'm well aware that most Protestants opposed marriage having religious relevance, and it was through most of Christian history, not religious in nature.

[Fiyero]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

Biblically, the Bible doesn't address the idea of "orientation". It condemns the behavior. That's it.

That's because orientation was not discovered until 1900 A.D. The same reason the Bible supports geocentrism. Heliocentrism was unheard of to the Biblical authors.

And the Bible condemns certain behavior. We just disagree on what the behavior is. You think it is a flat out ban on all same-sex behavior, despite the Hebrew and Greek, and cultural context never saying that.

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by Fiyero

I'm well aware that most Protestants opposed marriage having religious relevance, and it was through most of Christian history, not religious in nature.

huh?

So when the church is called the "Bride of Christ", and the Bible talks about how he'll go and prepare a place before coming back to claim her...and how there will be a wedding feast.....that's just nonsense? Honestly, look at some of the symbolism in 1st Century Jewish weddings and compare it to the Biblical language used.

Nevermind the fact that God ordained marriage with the first 2 humans and told them to procreate.

Originally Posted by Fiyero

That's because orientation was not discovered until 1900 A.D. The same reason the Bible supports geocentrism. Heliocentrism was unheard of to the Biblical authors.

1. So your argument is based on some idiotic idea of psychology only recently "discovered"?

2. The Bible does not support geocentrism. The scientists throughout history though, have considered it to be the center of the universe, as well as flat. The fact that the church bought into the lie for a time is an interesting fact.

And the Bible condemns certain behavior. We just disagree on what the behavior is. You think it is a flat out ban on all same-sex behavior, despite the Hebrew and Greek, and cultural context never saying that.

Umm...yah, it does say that. For about 2000 years everyone agreed on that until only recently. But hey...what do we know? You and your new understanding must have it right.

[hammertime33]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

2. The Bible does not support geocentrism. The scientists throughout history though, have considered it to be the center of the universe, as well as flat. The fact that the church bought into the lie for a time is an interesting fact.

To quote Martin Luther (speaking about Copernicus):

"That fool tries to distort the entire art of astronomy! But as the Holy Scripture shows, Joshua commended the Sun to stand still, and not the Earth!"

[Dollymixture]

Originally Posted by filihok

In another thread a possible win-win solution to the same-sex debate was proposed.

Many who are against the idea of same-sex marriage feel that way because of the use of the term "marriage". Some feel that same-sex marriage would corrupt the term "marriage" thereby corrupting their own marriages.

Others feel that the homosexual community is rejecting a compromise of calling same-sex unions "civil unions" because it is their 'agenda' to make homosexuality normal and accepted.

The solution put forth in the other thread was to give same-sex unions the same 1400 benefits as heterosexual marriages and allow same-sex unions to use the term "marriage". The proposal would also allow heterosexual unions the 1400 benefits and use of the term "marriage". it would also allow heterosexuals to 'opt-out' of the term "marriage" and, instead, use the term "civil union".

Do you agree that this is a fair compromise and a win-win solution?

Yes.

[miamiman]

Originally Posted by filihok

For reproduction sure.

I can have pleasurable (of course pleasure is a chemical imbalance; too much dopamine) sex in ways with females that would never lead to reproduction. Just as two homosexuals can have pleasurable sex that would never lead to reproduction.

How is pleasure a chemical imbalance? Pleasure is a normal feeling. Homosexuality, while not abnormal, is a chemical imbalance that leads people to be attracted to the same sex. I have no problem with people being attracted to the same sex. When people start wanting to marry people of the same sex because of this imbalance, I draw the line.

Clearly, you can have sex that never leads to reproduction. My point still stands that heterosexual relationships are the standard because it takes a man a woman to reproduce. Not all men and women can reproduce due to varying issues. However, since heterosexuality is the standard, I have no problem with these couples getting married.

Originally Posted by filihok

People tend to marry people who make them feel good. Feeling good is the result of a increased dopamine in the brain. Increased dopamine is an imbalance, as discussed above.

Since heterosexuals desire to get married is based solely off the result of an imbalance, do you also feel that they should not be allowed to marry?

If you feel that homosexuals should be forbidden to marry because their desire is the result of an imbalance, but you feel that heterosexuals should be allowed to marry even though their desire is the result of an imbalance, then you are a hypocrite.

Is this how you feel?

The release of dopamine is not an imbalance. It is a neurotransmitter that we all have. The negates the rest of your "theorem."

Originally Posted by filihok

There may be some homosexuals who want to know who you are to tell them what they can't do.

I have just as much authority over you as you do over them.

I'm not telling anyone what they can't do. I'm just telling them that I don't support ANYONE marrying someone of the same sex. It's clear that the law has allowed voters in many states to decide that same sex should be illegal for us all.

Originally Posted by Jaymax

Seriously. Where are you getting this nonsense?
Homobigots-r-us?

Are you unable to refute any of my claims, thus resorting to calling me a "homobigot?" Care to make some points so that we can have an actual debate? No? Ok.

Originally Posted by Rita Mordio

Well that's interesting. I'm bisexual (with a preference for females) yet I'm married.

There is no scientific proof that bisexuality exists. You're either straight or a lesbian.

Originally Posted by Rita Mordio

Appeal to tradition is not a valid argument.

Clearly it is. That is the reason that many voters have used to their reasoning for voting down gay marriage EVERY single time the issue has arisen.

Originally Posted by Rita Mordio

Well, here's an example:

Gays can't reproduce, therefore they should be banned from marriage. This statement is hypocritical because society still allows heterosexuals who either can't or won't ever reproduce to marry.

Hmm, you must be reading non-existent words. I never claimed that those who cannot reproduce should not be afforded the right to marry. What I did say is that it takes a man and a woman to reproduce and reproduction is key to the continuation of humanity, so it is clear that heterosexual relationships are the standard and should be celebrated.

Originally Posted by Rita Mordio

So if non-reproductive heterosexuals are fine, then it's obvious that reproduction is not a requirement for or against marriage.

Hmm, no, read above. Just focus.

Originally Posted by Rita Mordio

Basic science would tell us that both heterosexuals and homosexuals (and bisexuals) are necessary for a properly populated species. It's called balance.

What sham "scientific" webpage are you getting this off of? Homosexuals are not needed to balance out humanity. Unfortunately, the humanity balances itself out through disease, death, and famine.

Originally Posted by Rita Mordio

People with hypothyroidism have chemical imbalances. They're allowed to marry. Why is that?

Are some chemical imbalances more equal than others?

People with hypothyroidism are not trying to force the entire country to change its moral beliefs as a result of their condition. I believe anyone should be allowed to get married to those of the opposite sex.

Homomarriage serves absolutely no purpose. That's partially why I am against it

Originally Posted by Rita Mordio

Correction: We would continue reproducing at even more unsustainable rates.

Our population would balance itself out through disease, famine, and death.

Originally Posted by Rita Mordio

I've stated before that dog as a menu item doesn't bother me.

And I'm stating that I don't believe you. You walk into Chipotle and they have golden retriever as a meat choice for your burrito and we'll see how much you're not bothered.

Originally Posted by Rita Mordio

And it wouldn't.

It would.

Originally Posted by Rita Mordio

But yet, you're wrong.

I'm not.

Originally Posted by Rita Mordio

I don't eat rabbit or duck either. The thought of eating it makes me sick to my stomache. I've yet to start a campaign against the eating of duck and rabbit.

Rabbit and duck are pretty common, socially acceptable meats. Since many people tread dogs as pets, dogs are not considered by most in this country to be acceptable cuisine.

Originally Posted by Rita Mordio

If a person's morality is based upon lies, fallacy, and hypocrisy, then what does it say about that person?

How do you know what my morals are based off of? Do you have morals? What are your morals based off of? Why aren't others allowed to have their own morals? Because you don't like them?

Originally Posted by Rita Mordio

If we all have different moral boundaries, then why state "I have standards and morals that I expect others to follow." That's the exact opposite of "We all have different moral boundaries".

No, it's not. It's realizing that I have morals that I expect others to follow while recognizing that others have the right not to agree or choose to follow them.

Originally Posted by Rita Mordio

Or is it that when it's your moral boundaries being challenged, it's a no-no... yet you have no problem trampling the moral boundaries of others?

I should ask the gay marriage supporters the same thing....

Originally Posted by Rita Mordio

Name one point in time in the history of the USA that the majority ever voted in favor of the rights of a minority.

Marriage is not a right. Where is it listed in the Constitution? The gays have the same right as all of us: to get married to a person of the opposite sex.

Originally Posted by Rita Mordio

If you should expect others to live by your morals and standards, then you need to be prepared to live by the morals and standards of others.

And I do. That's why we have laws. Do I agree with all laws? Absolutely not.

Originally Posted by Rita Mordio

If a person's morality is based upon lies, fallacy, and hypocrisy, then what does it say about that person?

Where are the lies and hypocrisy?

Originally Posted by Rita Mordio

What gives you the right to tell others to live by your morals and standards?

I have the right to have my own moral standard for society. You don't have to live by morals, but if I see an issue on the ballot that speaks to my moral principles for society, I will vote on it.

If there was a ballot proposal in your state to make murder legal, would you vote for it? Probably not. Your moral standard for society would be higher. You expect others not to kill each other. You are now expecting others to live by your standard of morality.

Originally Posted by Rita Mordio

I don't support morality based upon blatant lies, hypocrisy, and/or fallacy.

Where are the lies and hypocrisy??

Originally Posted by Rita Mordio

Inorite?

...

Originally Posted by MsMcQ LV

Well, it goes against what I believe to deny marriage just because of your beliefs. Sometimes civilization (culture) is in need of a shift and I believe this is one of those times.

Oh, well, that's too bad. Our laws are derived off of the belief of the majority. The majority believes that allowing anyone to marry some of the same sex should be illegal and it is.

Originally Posted by MsMcQ LV

So, now what do we do? Do you think your beliefs should be more important to me than mine? Do you think your beliefs should count more than mine? Or should they count over and above everyone else's in this country? Cause I gotta tell you that I really don't see that happening any time soon, do you?

Yes. My morality is very important to me. When we vote is when it's decide what view of morality stands. So far, we have voted to keep traditional marriage.

Originally Posted by MsMcQ LV

I agree with AUM and my agreement is based on the fact that I have family and friends who live in those states and I know for a fact that their lives have not changed a whit since same sex marriage became legal there.

Society's view of morality has. We are now expected to have our traditions expunged because rogue groups want to try to shove whatever agenda they have down our collective throats.

Originally Posted by MsMcQ LV

I'd ask for links to that info, but I'm sure I already know where it comes from. But, in case I'm wrong, please tell us where you get the bit of "knowledge" from.

It's common knowledge. Gay, Straight Men's Brain Responses Differ - Health News | Current Health News | Medical News - FOXNews.com