Yet Another Homosexual Marriage Thread
- Thread starter Mystech
- Start date
Bells I'm suprised you didn't get the joke about "cuting of something" and throwing it to the flames. I thought it would be obvious and would not need to explaining. Haven't you heard in the bible where Jesus says that if your eyes sin make you sin cast them into the flames?
In any case even it wasn't a joke, I'm still correct here. I have not defined who does not serve God or who does. It just a simple if-then logic. Nor did I passage did imply that all homosexuals do not serve God.
Ectopic pregnancy is one of the few cases where immediate care would be needed. In other cases, like a month or two before pregancy they should at least talk with a priest.
In 1930 the Catholic Church decided that abortion was not a sin if it was carried out on a woman suffering from cancer of the womb or an ectopic pregnancy. This was because in both cases, both the foetus and the mother would die if the abortion was not carried out. http://www.religiousstudies.co.uk/abortion.htm
In any case even it wasn't a joke, I'm still correct here. I have not defined who does not serve God or who does. It just a simple if-then logic. Nor did I passage did imply that all homosexuals do not serve God.
Planned maybe, but not part of the organization? The Planned Parenthood is this <a href="http://dianedew.com/black.htm">organization</a>.
As of right now, anyone who commits an abortion is automatically excommunicated. That does necessarly mean that they will get an excommuniation notice or anything like that. So I think someone who commits an abortion for non-medical reasons will have to talk to a bishop to be recommunicated. In any case, life saving abortions are very rare. You also assume that when I say that abortion is murder, that everyone who commits murder is going to hell.
Ectopic pregnancy is one of the few cases where immediate care would be needed. In other cases, like a month or two before pregancy they should at least talk with a priest.
In 1930 the Catholic Church decided that abortion was not a sin if it was carried out on a woman suffering from cancer of the womb or an ectopic pregnancy. This was because in both cases, both the foetus and the mother would die if the abortion was not carried out. http://www.religiousstudies.co.uk/abortion.htm
I thoroughly believe that gay people should be welcome to the right to have half their shit taken away from them in divorce court. I think the charismatic Christians/evangelicals have "issues" if they think the homosexual lifestyle will have any bearing whatsoever on their lives. Perhaps they should explore that rather than trying to legislate morality.
Frankly I don't see much morality in hatred of fellow human beings based on such petty issues.
:m: Peace.
What if someone played it safe, though? There's a chance of contracting something nasty no matter what your sexuality is, and no matter who you are sleeping with, really, does that mean that all sex should be looked down upon? And how exactly is allowing homosexual marriage going to make this problem worse?
What "medical complications" beyond STDs are there?
[cheapshot] Hah, and you say I'm the one with mental problems
Hey I'm not the social retard. [/cheapshot]Homosexual sex serves no purpose? At first I thought you were referring to the idea that it doesn't produce children, which we've talked about in this thread, already, but then you go on to say that it's not an act of love. How is it not an act of love? I mean, given, there are a lot of times when it could just be an act of animal desire, the same is true of heterosexual sex, it doesn't differ much from that, but why do you think that homosexuals can't "Make love" as it were? How is it that they aren't capable of using that physical act to express their love for one another, in the same way that a heterosexual couple does?
And why is it a spiritually deadening thing? You'll have to accept that very few people subscribe to such a harsh interpretation of your particular scriptures. I find sex to be a very spiritual thing, when I'm being intimate with someone I care about, I always feel a little closer to heaven. You're going to have to shift your paradigm a bit, and realize that matters of spirituality are pretty arbitrary and different from person to person. What you see as sin and evil could be another persons vision of perfection.
Why should it matter what god said about it? Make up your own damn mind. If you can't find the reasoning behind gods supposed opinions then don't bother following them, live a life according to how you perceive the world, not how others have told you to behave.
Yes you're right, the gay pride movement tries to get people to endorse homosexuality as being normal. It's seeking acceptance in society. What it is not doing is saying that anyone should become a homosexual, or even that people should give it a try before they knock it, or whatever. Also there is not evidence to suggest that homosexuality is a choice, and in practice it seems very much as if it's a factor that is set at birth, so what exactly is the point that you are trying to make?
Homosexuals can get married, only the goverment does not give them the same rights but hopefully the civil union setup will work.
Tearing etc. Gay Bowel syndrome. These ailments and of course occur during heterosexual sex but only the kinky type of stuft.
http://www.inoohr.org/medicalproblems.htm
I'm only mildly against making homosexual marriage illegal. I just choose a side to debate and present evidence. Unfortunatly people like Bells think that I'm condemning someone when I say anything someone else does is wrong. The catholic church says that masturbation is wrong so that makes me against 95% of the male population. Also when I say that a person has mental problems, I say it with realization that everyone has mental problems.
I don't see people as being gay or straight. Your accepted into society as soon as your concieved, normal or abnormal. Part of the goodness of society is that everyone is different.
Originally posted by okinrus
Homosexuals can get married, only the goverment does not give them the same rights but hopefully the civil union setup will work.
Good, we are agreed.
Tearing etc. Gay Bowel syndrome. These ailments and of course occur during heterosexual sex but only the kinky type of stuft.
Actually no... tearing can also happen during 'regular' sex... the tearing is just in a different (less noticable) place.
http://www.inoohr.org/medicalproblems.htm
They aren't exactly the MDA. Biased group you think?
I'm only mildly against making homosexual marriage illegal. I just choose a side to debate and present evidence.
You failed. You are the weakest link. Goodbye!
Unfortunatly people like Bells think that I'm condemning someone when I say anything someone else does is wrong.
You are condemning them when you try to support a position that puts them at a disadvantage.
Also when I say that a person has mental problems, I say it with realization that everyone has mental problems.
Lol.... pot calling the coal?
I don't see people as being gay or straight. Your accepted into society as soon as your concieved, normal or abnormal. Part of the goodness of society is that everyone is different.
Fine, then why should someone be put at a disadvantage because of the difference of sexual persuasion? You have yet to present ANY reason that doesn't rest on your Book.
Homosexuals can get married, only the goverment does not give them the same rights but hopefully the civil union setup will work.
Good, we are agreed.
Tearing etc. Gay Bowel syndrome. These ailments and of course occur during heterosexual sex but only the kinky type of stuft.
Actually no... tearing can also happen during 'regular' sex... the tearing is just in a different (less noticable) place.
http://www.inoohr.org/medicalproblems.htm
They aren't exactly the MDA. Biased group you think?
I'm only mildly against making homosexual marriage illegal. I just choose a side to debate and present evidence.
You failed. You are the weakest link. Goodbye!
Unfortunatly people like Bells think that I'm condemning someone when I say anything someone else does is wrong.
You are condemning them when you try to support a position that puts them at a disadvantage.
Also when I say that a person has mental problems, I say it with realization that everyone has mental problems.
Lol.... pot calling the coal?
I don't see people as being gay or straight. Your accepted into society as soon as your concieved, normal or abnormal. Part of the goodness of society is that everyone is different.
Fine, then why should someone be put at a disadvantage because of the difference of sexual persuasion? You have yet to present ANY reason that doesn't rest on your Book.
It would be more fare and certainly less discriminatory if they just call it marriage. I don't want a "civil union" that still shows that we are living in a society intent on disenfranchising and keeping itself separate from the issue of homosexuality. If it looks like marriage, acts like marriage, and provides the same rights and guarantees of marriage, than just call it marriage for gods sake, and lay the issue to rest.
I'm gonna' give you some advice. Go out, find some girl you like, marry her first if it makes you feel better about it, but then go fuck her raw, if you think that there's never any tearing or bleeding in vaginal sex you're kidding yourself. As for gay bowel syndrome. . . I have never heard of such a thing I'm going to have to read that link of yours so I can give it a good laugh, but I'll do that later, when I'm not in a public place.
The problem is that it's a haughty attitude. You condemn a behavior which some people exhibit, which doesn't have any particularly negative consequences, then say that it's an evil and sinful thing based on pretty indiscernible logic and unintelligible reasons. Forgive some of us if it seems like you're grasping at straws to justify your dislike of that particular group.
So let's quit our bickering, make society cater to that ideal, and legalise homosexual marriages.
Originally posted by Mystech
It would be more fare and certainly less discriminatory if they just call it marriage. I don't want a "civil union" that still shows that we are living in a society intent on disenfranchising and keeping itself separate from the issue of homosexuality. If it looks like marriage, acts like marriage, and provides the same rights and guarantees of marriage, than just call it marriage for gods sake, and lay the issue to rest.[/QUOTE] I think I may disagree with you here. Marriage was defined in religious terms, which specificed man-woman. I take issue with redefining a word because someone 'feels' that they have a right to the word. That being said, I feel government should use the same term for all marriage-like unions, and this should be 'civil union'.
You have the rights to the benefits marriage can bring, but I don't believe you have the right to redefine the english language as used in law. Call it whatever you want in public, but in law the definition should be held until marriage is 'common use' for gay marriages.
It would be more fare and certainly less discriminatory if they just call it marriage. I don't want a "civil union" that still shows that we are living in a society intent on disenfranchising and keeping itself separate from the issue of homosexuality. If it looks like marriage, acts like marriage, and provides the same rights and guarantees of marriage, than just call it marriage for gods sake, and lay the issue to rest.[/QUOTE] I think I may disagree with you here. Marriage was defined in religious terms, which specificed man-woman. I take issue with redefining a word because someone 'feels' that they have a right to the word. That being said, I feel government should use the same term for all marriage-like unions, and this should be 'civil union'.
You have the rights to the benefits marriage can bring, but I don't believe you have the right to redefine the english language as used in law. Call it whatever you want in public, but in law the definition should be held until marriage is 'common use' for gay marriages.
I think that a term that fills the role of "marriage" doesn't need to bother specifying the sex of the two involved. That is, if "Civil Unions" were established for homosexuals, and "Marriage" reserved for heterosexual couples, then when talking about such things one would automatically know the sex of both involved upon usage of the term. I feel that this fact has a segregationist flavor to it, sort of the separate but equal idea. It is demeaning to homosexuals, who are made to feel as if essentially the American government is tired of their begging for food, and so has set up a special kiddy table for them to eat at, if such a metaphor isn't a little too over the top.
In my opinion the sex of the persons involved in a marriage are not important. Marriage is the word we use to describe the bond and the relationship, it is not a word we use to describe the people, as such the legal definition of marriage should be changed to a union between two persons.
In my opinion the sex of the persons involved in a marriage are not important. Marriage is the word we use to describe the bond and the relationship, it is not a word we use to describe the people, as such the legal definition of marriage should be changed to a union between two persons.
I agree with you, in that I also use the term marriage even in this topic. My point is that religious groups (who have alot of influence) will argue that this definition of marriage goes against their religious documents. It seems easier to me to just call all 'marriages' in law 'civil unions'.
I'm not advocating 'seperate but equal', just a term that people won't be able to fight with you about.
I'm not advocating 'seperate but equal', just a term that people won't be able to fight with you about.
I think that a term that fills the role of "marriage" doesn't need to
bother specifying the sex of the two involved. That is, if "Civil
Unions" were established for homosexuals, and "Marriage" reserved for heterosexual couples, then when talking about such things one would automatically know the sex of both involved upon usage of the term. I feel that this fact has a segregationist flavor to it, sort of the separate but equal idea. It is demeaning to homosexuals, who are made to feel as if essentially the American government is tired of their begging for food, and so has set up a special kiddy table for them to eat at, if such a metaphor isn't a little too over the top.
In my opinion the sex of the persons involved in a marriage are not important. Marriage is the word we use to describe the bond and the relationship, it is not a word we use to describe the people, as such the legal definition of marriage should be changed to a union between two persons.
bother specifying the sex of the two involved. That is, if "Civil
Unions" were established for homosexuals, and "Marriage" reserved for heterosexual couples, then when talking about such things one would automatically know the sex of both involved upon usage of the term. I feel that this fact has a segregationist flavor to it, sort of the separate but equal idea. It is demeaning to homosexuals, who are made to feel as if essentially the American government is tired of their begging for food, and so has set up a special kiddy table for them to eat at, if such a metaphor isn't a little too over the top.
In my opinion the sex of the persons involved in a marriage are not important. Marriage is the word we use to describe the bond and the relationship, it is not a word we use to describe the people, as such the legal definition of marriage should be changed to a union between two persons.
In pictures
Steve Benson, Arizona Republic, July 8, 2003
Briefly, and only so as not to leave Mr. Benson to speak for me entirely, and while I can't promise full relevance here, I'll actually keep it short. (What an odd excuse for a sentence ....)
(1) It is the right of churches to exclude homosexuals from marriage
(2) It is inappropriate for the government to hold gender as a standard for preventing marriage, and it is furthemore illegal in the United States
Political suggestion: What if the issue isn't homosexuality per se, but rather gender discrimination against one of the partners?
One could, with a more refined version of that argument, start putting the nails in the cross, so to speak.
:m:,
Tiassa
Steve Benson, Arizona Republic, July 8, 2003
Briefly, and only so as not to leave Mr. Benson to speak for me entirely, and while I can't promise full relevance here, I'll actually keep it short. (What an odd excuse for a sentence ....)
(1) It is the right of churches to exclude homosexuals from marriage
(2) It is inappropriate for the government to hold gender as a standard for preventing marriage, and it is furthemore illegal in the United States
Political suggestion: What if the issue isn't homosexuality per se, but rather gender discrimination against one of the partners?
One could, with a more refined version of that argument, start putting the nails in the cross, so to speak.
:m:,
Tiassa
