jgrimes80 Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 As stated before heterosexual sex is in no way frowned upon by God when practiced in the manner in which God intended it. God didn't "make {censored} people" - God made people and gave them free will, unfortunately people chose to go against God's will and the result was that sin entered out world. Everyone has sinful desires - i'm frequently greedy, selfish, disobedient etc. It is not sinful to be attacted to someone of your own sex - however it is sinful to give in to such desires (in the same way it is sinful for a straight person to have sex outwith marriage) Thats doesn't mean God doesn't love {censored} people, he just hates their sins - as he hates my sins. My mistake ... "be fruitful and multipy, fill the earth" - genesis i think... I was thinking failure to resist tempations... condemned likewise... If you sins are no less than a {censored}'s "natural" sins, why should a {censored} have to recieve harsher punishment here on earth? What oppressions do you recieve in life for your sins? Why not let them enjoy their time on earth just as you're entitled to? How does a {censored} person with no distinguishable features affect you? What negatives are brought about in the absence of condemning homosexuals? To what extent more does a {censored} person do to your religion that a Buddist(sp?) do? What REASONABLE explanation is there to persecute explicitly, homosexuals today, and homosexuals to come? Wait, it's a choice... until science proves it isn't. Hell, even if it is, who are you to determine what "God" was trying to tell/teach these prophets? Where in the Bible are you entitled to discriminate, persecute, judge, and damn? Whether it's right or wrong doesn't matter because it's in the Bible? If the Bible said, "KILL, KILL, KILL!" would you? Answer some of these.. PLEASE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
node64 Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 gwprod12: thats the point im making but u need to realise that this is a discussion, everyone has oppinions, and the point of discussion is to let other people hear your oppinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malakite Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 i think that if your mother and her husband truelly believe in there religion and that same religion says taht its wrong, then it is wrong. However if they dont believe in it then why would they get married at a church? Okay heh.. More posts are comin in faster then I can type a single one up I can't speak for them, but the only thought that comes to mind, is that they don't blanket all their beliefs into one 'set' group. They think for themselves, and if the church says it is wrong it is their 'interpertation' that is what they are going by. I am sure they believe the same things. They both believe the god died for their sins, and many many other things. But who is to tell them what specificly to belive? Why must man try to act like a god and put mandates from their own interpertations of the bible? Why would they get married at a church? Why wouldn't they? Why would they give up all they believe in because of one disagreement with that church's interpertation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgrimes80 Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 If you think getting divorced is wrong, dont do it.If you are a dude and you wanna be with another dude, but you think it's wrong, dont do it. If you think it's wrong to own a Hummer, dont buy one. If you think going to church is bad for you, dont go there. If you think eating meat is wrong, dont eat it. Just dont make the choice for the rest of us. flipping amen.... These oppressive views don't reflect everyone... who are you decide for them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
node64 Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 Malakite: i dont know enought about the christian faith to answer you. and tbh, i think that the religion thing is maybe a bit off topic. I dont think i hav been able to explain what i meant properly nether. Basicly what i mean is that, to me it depends on ther person. And liek gwprod said, if they believe taht it is wrong then it is, but if they believe its ok then its ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malakite Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 Basicly what i mean is that, to me it depends on ther person. And liek gwprod said, if they believe taht it is wrong then it is, but if they believe its ok then its ok. On that one I have to agree, all I am saying is that it is up to the person not the church (in this case) Nor blanket beliefs of *Ahem* Religious Zeliots. Which I don't think you disagre with from that statement, but I don't mean to talk for ya only guessing heh Edit-And it is somewhat a tangent, but especially on something like this, the religion (Or whatever core beliefs you have of that religion) is where most of what the decision is made of. Right or wrong that is just how some people decide it.. so I think that is why it is being descussed so frequently Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
node64 Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 Malakite: i dont disagree with your statement. and i agree that morals mostly derive from or are influenced by religion. I respect that the majority of americans are christian and that this thread was orig about america (i think). I think maybe what we need to realise ( and i think this is what u meant in the above statement) is that some peoples religions are unique to them and things like love and there moral views shape there individual religion. That is where i worded things wrong in teh first place, its more that peoples feelings influence there religion rather than the religion influencing that persons feelings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgrimes80 Posted June 14, 2006 Share Posted June 14, 2006 From USAToday... {censored}'s I'd like readers to pay most attention to those last few sentences... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouch Posted June 14, 2006 Share Posted June 14, 2006 If you sins are no less than a {censored}'s "natural" sins, why should a {censored} have to recieve harsher punishment here on earth? What oppressions do you recieve in life for your sins? Why not let them enjoy their time on earth just as you're entitled to? How does a {censored} person with no distinguishable features affect you? What negatives are brought about in the absence of condemning homosexuals? To what extent more does a {censored} person do to your religion that a Buddist(sp?) do? What REASONABLE explanation is there to persecute explicitly, homosexuals today, and homosexuals to come? Wait, it's a choice... until science proves it isn't. Hell, even if it is, who are you to determine what "God" was trying to tell/teach these prophets? Where in the Bible are you entitled to discriminate, persecute, judge, and damn? Whether it's right or wrong doesn't matter because it's in the Bible? If the Bible said, "KILL, KILL, KILL!" would you? Answer some of these.. PLEASE! I don't believe limiting marriage to between a man and a women causes suffering - so i don't think it's persecution. I don't judge - i'm not making statements like "if your {censored} you go to hell" because as you stated i am in no position to make that judgement. I also believe that people sin without knowing it, i believe there are {censored} christians out there who honestly believe that homosexuality is not a sin, and i believe that if they have faith in Jesus Christ then they will be forgiven those sins. If my interpretation is wrong then i believe that God will forgive my sin of 'persecution' as you put it because of my faith in Jesus Christ. As that article stated churches are divided on some subjects and people are fallible and can interpret scripture wrongly - but we are called to stand up for our beliefs. Hopefully that answer helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted June 14, 2006 Share Posted June 14, 2006 Whatever happened to "Love Thy Neighbour as Yourself?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyrana Posted June 14, 2006 Share Posted June 14, 2006 Someone finally gets the point and my unintentional bigoted and discriminatory comment. That just shows you the type of red neck Mr. Bush is. I'm sure quite a few of us understand your comment, don't worry. Not that long ago people used the bible to justify slavery and inter-racial marriage... I personally don't care what people do in their private lives. If it offends the hypocrites of the world, just call it a civil partnership and be done with it. The whole sanctity of marriage stuff is just bollocks. It is very easy to look up statistics for the divorce and teen pregnancy rates of various US states. Here's one hint - MA isn't exactly high on either of those. So they didn't cause the downfall of society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted June 14, 2006 Share Posted June 14, 2006 It's like saying that legalized drugs, sexual education and sexual liberty will destroy society... It hasnt hurt the dutch so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domino Posted June 19, 2006 Author Share Posted June 19, 2006 It's like saying that legalized drugs, sexual education and sexual liberty will destroy society... It hasnt hurt the dutch so far. I was Dutched at the coffee shop for about 3 weeks so I totally agree... Just bored and thinking... I don't reallyknow, but it just seams that small towns and southern states are against {censored} marriage. Those places where everyone knows everyone, you know? Something else I just thought about. The English monarchy would marry in their own family, yet they claim that are God fearing people? To me, marrying my own cousin is a sin. I can imagine it now, "Hi uncle Tom, I slept with your daughter the other night." Anyhoe, I have done some bad things in the past which I wasn't proud of. For example, remember the {censored} bashing years? Lets just leave it at that. It makes me sick when I look back and remember how ignorant and pathetic I was and you might say I have matured. Ya, so my bitching and moaning wasn't in any way about religion, gender issues, or preference. It's about choices that are taken from people that do have a soul, feelings, and a right to control their lives. I mean, wtf? What if society was the opposite? Would you die for your right to live the way you want to live? I tell you what, I would die for my daughter's rights of Liberty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 The monachy of Britain, for the most part wasnt incestuous. It's inbreeding came from royalty wedding royalty. Obviously there's only so much royalty to go around, so inevitably, all royals became somewhat closely related. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgrimes80 Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 The monachy of Britain, for the most part wasnt incestuous. It's inbreeding came from royalty wedding royalty. Obviously there's only so much royalty to go around, so inevitably, all royals became somewhat closely related. "Yeah, I'm going to have to... disagree with you there." (Office Space... lol) Inbreeding came from Adam and Eve's kids... (assuming it's a historical reference) It was in actuality the social norm in the past... it's just more known to be in royal families because that's who we have the most records about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domino Posted June 19, 2006 Author Share Posted June 19, 2006 Don't forget the Billy Family in W. Virginia. No offense.. The only way I'd marry a cousin was if I wanted to keep money in the family. Just me.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bwhsh8r Posted July 16, 2006 Share Posted July 16, 2006 Why not, its not hurting me and its not like what they do in there personal life effects me at all, even if they do get married... what i do im my life is my buisness and what they do in theres is their buisness. if they start bothering me (alot of the lesbians in my neaghbourhood really chap my a** but because there annoying and try and force their ideals and views on me, witch i am strongly oposed to) not because theyre {censored}... max oh and btw, i go to a catholic school and they say it is wrong because they are having sex for pleasure and not to reproduce.... ignorant in my mind, just like how they dont support condoms, but whatever.... its not like they can do anything about it if i do that stuff (im a lutheran btw) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John the Geek Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 if they start bothering me (alot of the lesbians in my neaghbourhood really chap my a** but because there annoying and try and force their ideals and views on me, witch i am strongly oposed to) not because theyre {censored}... Yeah, it's funny how both sides end up being wrong after a while as right and wrong start to blur. I know some "{censored} crusaders" myself. I also know my share of "holy rolers" too. The point for everyone involved is not to force your ideas on others. What's right for you may not be right for others. It's all about point-of-view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 That's right. But you have to define parameters. Many people feel that it hurts them physically for {censored} people to exist and have rights. Just as I feel it hurts me every time a lion doesnt get to eat a Christian. Rights stop at the other person's nose. Let's all remember that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killbot1000 Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 I think the main problem with people and this, is that people dont understand the difference between offense and Harm, it may offend you that you see {censored} people getting married, but what you CALL harm is really just offense. This might seem obvious but think about most of the laws that go through the house and the senate now, its really about whos offended more, rather than whether its doing actual harm to the society or not...I dunno, just my take on it, obviously I dont give a {censored} if {censored} people get married, if you find somebody that you love, and you want to commit to them, I say Go for it, afterall, youre marrying the brain not the body, atleast thats how I see it (although Im strait, so my brain chemistry tells me Im attracted to women) BUT MY POINT STILL STANDS...haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vbetts Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 Personally, I don't mind that they get married, because it doesn't bother us. Although, my mom is a democrat and against it(Hmmm....).She does have somewhat of a reasonable argument though. She saids marrige is the bond between a man and a woman. But, my decision stands as this. Everyone has free will. You chose to marry, you choose to marry. You choose the same gender, you choose the same gender.You want to marry the same gender, you try all you can to, and hopefully it will be legalized sooner or later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 Marriage has traditionally been a bond between man and woman. That's true Tradition isnt a reasonable argument. "Because something has been this way, therefore, that's the way it must always be" The same argument was used against abolishionists in the 19th century. Since black people were slaves in the past, they must be slaves for a good reason, therefore they should continue to be slaves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John the Geek Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 Marriage has traditionally been a bond between man and woman. That's true I wouldn't even sugar-coat it in that manner. Traditional marriage was essentially the ownership of a woman who belonged to her father until he "gave her away" to another man. We've especially spent the last 60 years redefining the definition of marriage to allow for more equal woman's rights in society and government. Whenever I hear a woman complaining about preserving a traditional view of marriage I tell her to get her *ss back in the kitchen and stay out of a man's business. (and while you're at it read Corinthians 11:3-16) I, of course, don't actually believe that. But it gets my point across beautifully. We've already changed what marriage is by eliminating all gender roles, why stop now. If a woman can be the breadwinner and a man can raise kids then why the hell can't two women or two men get married if they want to? =) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killbot1000 Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 I wouldn't even sugar-coat it in that manner. Traditional marriage was essentially the ownership of a woman who belonged to her father until he "gave her away" to another man. We've especially spent the last 60 years redefining the definition of marriage to allow for more equal woman's rights in society and government. Whenever I hear a woman complaining about preserving a traditional view of marriage I tell her to get her *ss back in the kitchen and stay out of a man's business. (and while you're at it read Corinthians 11:3-16) I, of course, don't actually believe that. But it gets my point across beautifully. We've already changed what marriage is by eliminating all gender roles, why stop now. If a woman can be the breadwinner and a man can raise kids then why the hell can't two women or two men get married if they want to? =) Precisely! Couldnt agree more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 I only see one problem when two men get married. Who does the dishes? Finding a boyfriend who can actually clean. That's a miracle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts