Author Topic: Gay Marriage thread (Read 5562 times)

YUCCA · « **Reply #165 on:** April 11, 2006, 07:24:59 PM »

Who are they actually hurting?

Elfie · « **Reply #166 on:** April 11, 2006, 07:28:04 PM »

Quote

Elfie, I consider religious views a pretty respectable reason for not wanting gay marriage, but you have to understand, in a nation anchored in large part by the Separation of Church and State, they're completely invalid.

They arent invalid in the voting booth

I understand (and agree with) the reasons for separation of church and state.

Where do we draw the line on who can marry anyone they want because of the love they have for another human being? The line has to be drawn somewhere or we will have perverts trying to marry kids. If we make an exception for one group, that sets a precedent for the next group.

Even from a secular standpoint I see nothing wrong with the definition of marriage as it stands now.

Even if homosexuals are granted the ability to *marry* by law, I will have a very hard time equating what they have to what I have. It just isnt the same imo.

Elfie · « **Reply #167 on:** April 11, 2006, 07:31:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
Elfie, so you're saying that the Judeo-Christian religion created marriage?

No, not exactly. I'm saying that according to the Bible the institution of marriage was created in the beginning of time by God, not Man. Saying the Judeo-Christian religion created the institution of marriage implies that Man created it.

Vudak · « **Reply #168 on:** April 11, 2006, 07:45:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Elfie

Where do we draw the line on who can marry anyone they want because of the love they have for another human being? The line has to be drawn somewhere or we will have perverts trying to marry kids. If we make an exception for one group, that sets a precedent for the next group.

We have laws preventing perverts from marrying kids (well, REALLY young ones anyway, see my earlier post about my cousin

) because we as a society value protecting our children. I don't think anyone (sane) is ever going to consider letting some 50 year old marry a 4 year old.

Legalizing or not legalizing gay marriage does not have anything to do with protecting anyone. It won't hurt anyone anymore then regular marriages do.

Quote

Even if homosexuals are granted the ability to *marry* by law, I will have a very hard time equating what they have to what I have. It just isnt the same imo.

There's nothing wrong with that, IMO.

Elfie · « **Reply #169 on:** April 11, 2006, 07:54:37 PM »

Vudak 20 or 30 years ago allowing same sex marriages was unthinkable. If we now allow same sex marriages and set a precendent for changing the laws....which group will be next in line to want the laws changed for them?

It may not happen the very next day, but what about in the next 20 or 30 years? Do we really want to start down that road? I personally dont.

Vudak · « **Reply #170 on:** April 11, 2006, 08:05:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Elfie
Vudak 20 or 30 years ago allowing same sex marriages was unthinkable. If we now allow same sex marriages and set a precendent for changing the laws....which group will be next in line to want the laws changed for them?

It may not happen the very next day, but what about in the next 20 or 30 years? Do we really want to start down that road? I personally dont.

And as others have pointed out, there was once a time interracial marriage wasn't allowed either. The precedent has already been set.

Our whole country runs on the precedent of changing laws.

I don't know what group will be the next in line to want the laws changed. Your guess is as good as mine. But I'll cross that bridge as to whether or not I agree with it at that time. All I know is I feel gays should be able to marry, and though some decent points against it have been raised, if I had to put it on the scales of justice, I think my side's got more weight. IMO, anyway.

Jackal1 · « **Reply #171 on:** April 11, 2006, 08:07:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Curval

What you do is simply sprout whatever you have been "taught" without any independent or logical thinking.

Never had a problem coming up with my own opinions and thinking for myself. I know that is foreign to you. Now go put on your pink shorts and run to the store for shrimp to put on the barbie for when Biff and Buff arrive......Mmmmmmmm K.

Quote

You sell yourself out by towing social and political "lines" that you seem incapable of questioning.

Hilarious. Man............have you dialed a wrong number.

Just read the last statemnt to the wife. She was lhao. She said "He`s not the quickest one to pick up on anything, is he?" Bout says it all.

Chairboy · « **Reply #172 on:** April 11, 2006, 08:10:43 PM »

Can you participate in this discussion without the personal insults, Jackal1? C'mon, it's a contentious enough subject already.

Jackal1 · « **Reply #173 on:** April 11, 2006, 08:12:18 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
Can you participate in this discussion without the personal insults, Jackal1? .

What personal insults hoss?

Could you possibly be less sensitive than to start yelling wolf every time you see a terrier?

Chairboy · « **Reply #174 on:** April 11, 2006, 08:20:57 PM »

Quote

Now go put on your pink shorts and run to the store for shrimp to put on the barbie for when Biff and Buff arrive......Mmmmmmmm K.

There ya go, I'm guessing you had forgotten typing that.

Jackal1 · « **Reply #175 on:** April 11, 2006, 08:24:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
There ya go, I'm guessing you had forgotten typing that.

No, I didn`t forget about it. So, where is the personal insult? I didn`t wear the dang pink shorts. He did. lmao If you consider that a personal insult , let me suggest online spades. Jeeez man, get a grip.
I think your real problem here is that some have a different opinion on the subject than you. If you didn`t want opinions stated you should have stated so in the beginning. I wouldn`t be expecting my opinion on the subject to be changing if I were you. Don`t want to know, don`t ask.

Chairboy · « **Reply #176 on:** April 11, 2006, 08:27:59 PM »

mmmmmmkay, I'll let you work that out for yourself.

Jackal1 · « **Reply #177 on:** April 11, 2006, 08:31:17 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
mmmmmmkay, I'll let you work that out for yourself.

I have it worked out. Not a problem. Your turn.
Get a grip please.

Seagoon · « **Reply #178 on:** April 11, 2006, 08:42:55 PM »

Ok here I am mentally kicking myself for even considering jumping into yet another gay marriage thread.

Before I do so, let me cite something I wrote earlier so that hopefully I at least won't have to deal with contention that I'm advocating the creation of a theocracy.

As I went back over my sermons and essays, I realized I've only preached on the topic of "gay marriage" once back in 2004 when Massachusetts was in the process of legalizing it and I was getting a lot of questions about what the Christian response to it should be. In order to answer that question I preached a sermon on the subject using 1 Cor. 5 as the starting point, primarily as it teaches Christians to be primarily concerned that sexual immorality not be found in the church. The sermon itself sought to address three key points:

1) The biblical witness on homosexuality and the nature of marriage
2) How Western culture has reached the point on this subject that we have
3) The way the church should respond to the legalization of Gay Marriage

The Sermon is Available online here: http://www.providencepca.com/sermons/cr.htm

Unfortunately, I preached from outline notes, rather than my usual process of writing out the whole text, but I've gone back and reconstructed it as well as I could. Some parts may still be cryptic, but if anyone has questions, I can try to explain what I meant here.

- SEAGOON

Vudak · « **Reply #179 on:** April 11, 2006, 09:01:10 PM »

Just browsing it quickly Seagoon (lot of material) but so far:

"Gay marriage is designed for precisely for the facilitating of uncleanness rather than its prevention."

I'm probably reading too much into this. I'd say if two gays are happily married and monogamous they'd be more likely to be clean of things such as STDs than two gays swinging it.

What's your interpretation of the word "uncleanness" - is it what I'm thinking of or maybe something more broad?

Just asking you to clear it up, been awhile since I've gone to a Church for something other than a Christmas pageant