• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Federal judge: Arguments against gay marriage 'are not those of serious people'

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
43,427
13,739
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟897,030.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Any time. I don't post to this board to bless or curse, but to argue in a forthright manner, as Christ did. Like it or lump it. The moderator has lumped it.

That's fine by me. Christians can see what goes on, here, on these threads, and draw their own conclusions.

I've been here awhile and there's really no reasoning with these athiests. They aren't here to learn anything. They like to ask questions repeatedly as if we're the ones who have something to prove. I'm still waiting for them to prove anything.
 
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
43,427
13,739
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟897,030.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
No, no, no. What's your basis for rejecting the judge's rationale of the specific argument in question. C'mon now. We've been over this several times. This thread has a specific topic, one which you've been conveniently avoiding.

I told you that my opinion was not in agreement with the judge's opinion. You asked me what the basis for my opinion was and now you change the question. And yeah, we've been over it several times. Aren't you tired of it yet?

Remember, I said,
Oh, I see. Well, I guess my opinions about it aren't the same as the judges, that's all. He has a basis for his opinions, and I have a basis for mine. They aren't in agreement, which means I don't agree with his opinions.

And then you replied by asking, "What's the basis for yours?"

So you apparently can't stay with one train of thought. Stick with something, ok?
 
Upvote 0

poolerboy0077

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2013
1,172
51
✟1,625.00
Faith
Atheist
I told you that my opinion was not in agreement with the judge's opinion. You asked me what the basis for my opinion was and now you change the question. And yeah, we've been over it several times. Aren't you tired of it yet?
So you're against the judge's response not because you feel his response was illogical or not based on the law to which he is bound but simply because you dislike any legal result or response that does not conform to your religious sentiments? That's not responding to the question at all, then. All you're basically saying is "I'm going to disagree with anything that doesn't sound anti-gay even if the response is rational." That's asinine.

I'll ask one final time before I give up: provide specific reasons for why the claim that there is no relevant connection between stopping gays from marrying and the concern for procreation. Mindlessly citing anti-gay Bible passages does not answer my question at all. At all.
 
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
43,427
13,739
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟897,030.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
So you're against the judge's response not because you feel his response was illogical or not based on the law to which he is bound but simply because you dislike any legal result or response that does not conform to your religious sentiments? That's not responding to the question at all, then.

Sure it is! I stated my opinion, and you asked for the basis of my opinion. I can't help it if you don't like it, or if you disagree with it.

I'll ask one final time before I give up: provide specific reasons for why the claim that there is no relevant connection between stopping gays from marrying and the concern for procreation.

Now you've changed the question again. If you didn't like my original answer to your original question, then I don't think you'll be happy with any other answers I give, including this one.

Mindlessly citing anti-gay Bible passages does not answer my question at all. At all.

You can be disrespectful all day long by calling something I say being "mindless", but it is not constructive, nor does it give you credence. If you don't like the reasons for my opinion (which is what you asked for), then I don't understand your reason for asking.
 
Upvote 0

CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN

My dad died 1/12/2023. I'm still devastated.
Jul 1, 2007
18,024
5,590
Native Land
✟399,097.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I told you that my opinion was not in agreement with the judge's opinion. You asked me what the basis for my opinion was and now you change the question. And yeah, we've been over it several times. Aren't you tired of it yet?
So anyone that can't have kids , don't want kids should get married either. That the reasoning for gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and/or transgendered shouldn't get married. That's what I got out of the article. But I don't feel that's a reason not allow gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and/or transgendered to get married. Since there are people that cant or don't want kids. They shouldn't be allowed to get married either. Also I don't want the states getting in my personal business.
 
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
43,427
13,739
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟897,030.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
So anyone that can't have kids , don't want kids should get married either. That the reasoning for gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and/or transgendered shouldn't get married. That's what I got out of the article. But I don't feel that's a reason not allow gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and/or transgendered to get married. Since there are people that cant or don't want kids. They shouldn't be allowed to get married either. Also I don't want the states getting in my personal business.

That's actually NOT the reason. Allow me to state the basis for my opinion once again. Remember, this is a Christian website that you're on asking for these answers:

[FONT=&quot]Leviticus 18:22 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1 Corinthians 6:9-11[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Romans 1:26-28[/FONT][FONT=&quot]For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Leviticus 20:13[/FONT][FONT=&quot]If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1 Timothy 1:10[/FONT][FONT=&quot]The sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Jude 1:7[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. [/FONT]
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Any time. I don't post to this board to bless or curse, but to argue in a forthright manner, as Christ did. Like it or lump it. The moderator has lumped it.

That's fine by me. Christians can see what goes on, here, on these threads, and draw their own conclusions.

Indeed, everyone is allowed to draw their own conclusions.
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I've been here awhile and there's really no reasoning with these athiests. They aren't here to learn anything. They like to ask questions repeatedly as if we're the ones who have something to prove. I'm still waiting for them to prove anything.

Didn't your teachers ever tell you, the best way to learn is to ask questions.
 
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
43,427
13,739
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟897,030.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Didn't your teachers ever tell you, the best way to learn is to ask questions.

Indeed. I seem to recall them also saying something about listening to the answers.
 
Upvote 0

poolerboy0077

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2013
1,172
51
✟1,625.00
Faith
Atheist
To halfsaved:

That's not the topic of the conversation. We already know this. We're (supposed to be) discussing the specific argument advanced by defendants in the case: that there is some relevant connection between stopping gay couples from marrying and a state interest in procreation. That's the topic.


The what? And the who? Oh yeah, we're a bit off topic, aren't we? ;)

Personally, I think the judge should simply stick to judging the facts of a case rather than judging the people making the arguments. Obviously, I don't agree with his decision.
On what Constitutional basis do you disagree with his decision?
This


That's not the topic of the conversation. We already know this. We're (supposed to be) discussing the specific argument advanced by defendants in the case: that there is some relevant connection between stopping gay couples from marrying and a state interest in procreation. That's the topic.


I'm still waiting to hear a proper, substantive critique by those who have an objection to the points made by the judge regarding the argument defendants advanced in this case.


I thought you guys were more interested in whether or not I supported SSM. Which one do you really care about knowing so much that you're willing to wait so long?
What I'm interested in is what you just quoted me on, which is the topic of this thread.


What's the basis for yours?


No, no, no. What's your basis for rejecting the judge's rationale of the specific argument in question. C'mon now. We've been over this several times. This thread has a specific topic, one which you've been conveniently avoiding.


So you're against the judge's response not because you feel his response was illogical or not based on the law to which he is bound but simply because you dislike any legal result or response that does not conform to your religious sentiments? That's not responding to the question at all, then. All you're basically saying is "I'm going to disagree with anything that doesn't sound anti-gay even if the response is rational." That's asinine.

I'll ask one final time before I give up: provide specific reasons for why the claim that there is no relevant connection between stopping gays from marrying and the concern for procreation. Mindlessly citing anti-gay Bible passages does not answer my question at all. At all.

If you don't want to answer the question just have the guts to say so. Stop dancing around it. You make it more embarrassing for yourself.
 
Upvote 0

CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN

My dad died 1/12/2023. I'm still devastated.
Jul 1, 2007
18,024
5,590
Native Land
✟399,097.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
That's actually NOT the reason. Allow me to state the basis for my opinion once again. Remember, this is a Christian website that you're on asking for these answers:

[FONT=&quot]Leviticus 18:22 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1 Corinthians 6:9-11[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Romans 1:26-28[/FONT][FONT=&quot]For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Leviticus 20:13[/FONT][FONT=&quot]If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1 Timothy 1:10[/FONT][FONT=&quot]The sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Jude 1:7[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. [/FONT]
I read that earlier, so your reasoning has nothing to do with this ruling, Just your religious belief. I just thought you post on here,because you disagree with the reasoning of this court case too.
 
Upvote 0

Skaloop

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion
May 10, 2006
16,332
899
48
Burnaby
Visit site
✟36,546.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-NDP
That's actually NOT the reason. Allow me to state the basis for my opinion once again. Remember, this is a Christian website that you're on asking for these answers:

[FONT=&quot]Leviticus 18:22 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1 Corinthians 6:9-11[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Romans 1:26-28[/FONT][FONT=&quot]For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Leviticus 20:13[/FONT][FONT=&quot]If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1 Timothy 1:10[/FONT][FONT=&quot]The sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Jude 1:7[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. [/FONT]

Nothing in there seems to indicate any problems with lesbians. So why shouldn't they be allowed to get married?
 
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
43,427
13,739
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟897,030.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
If you don't want to answer the question just have the guts to say so. Stop dancing around it. You make it more embarrassing for yourself.

For Pete's sake! I told you before, I don't agree with the judge, ok? I don't share his opinion. He has his and I have mine, and I know you have yours. Do I have to change my opinion based on what a judge says? We all judge things for ourselves. As I've indicated a couple times already, my opinions are based on what I read and understand in God's word. I even quoted many passages of the bible to indicate just what parts of it I base my opinion on relating to the subject we're talking about. The judge bases his own opinion on secular law. That's his job. I understand that. I'm not bound by the same constraints that this judge is. So I'm free to have opinions based on a much wider range of possibilities.
 
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
43,427
13,739
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟897,030.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Nothing in there seems to indicate any problems with lesbians. So why shouldn't they be allowed to get married?

Most items in the bible traditionally refer to men. Even after Cain and Abel, the birth of women weren't even mentioned, which addresses the question of "where did Cain get his wife?"
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Skaloop

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion
May 10, 2006
16,332
899
48
Burnaby
Visit site
✟36,546.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-NDP
Most items in the bible traditionally refer to men.

Except three of the six passages cited specifically mention women, but make no mention of any problems with lesbians.

Even after Cain and Abel, the birth of women weren't even mentioned, which addresses the question of "where to Cain get his wife?"

So his wife was his sister?
 
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
43,427
13,739
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟897,030.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
So his wife was his sister?

That's my theory. Way back in the beginning, the gene pool hadn't been corrupted yet, so prohibitions against marrying close relatives weren't needed. So my theory is that Adam and Eve had given birth to girls as well.
 
Upvote 0

Skaloop

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion
May 10, 2006
16,332
899
48
Burnaby
Visit site
✟36,546.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-NDP
That's my theory. Way back in the beginning, the gene pool hadn't been corrupted yet, so prohibitions against marrying close relatives weren't needed. So my theory is that Adam and Eve had given birth to girls as well.

Right now, in 2014, siblings can have children with no significantly increased risk of genetic defects. Despite all of this alleged corruption of the gene pool.
 
Upvote 0

poolerboy0077

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2013
1,172
51
✟1,625.00
Faith
Atheist
For Pete's sake! I told you before, I don't agree with the judge, ok? I don't share his opinion. He has his and I have mine, and I know you have yours. Do I have to change my opinion based on what a judge says? We all judge things for ourselves. As I've indicated a couple times already, my opinions are based on what I read and understand in God's word.
So it's settled. You don't want to answer the question.
 
Upvote 0

CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN

My dad died 1/12/2023. I'm still devastated.
Jul 1, 2007
18,024
5,590
Native Land
✟399,097.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
That's my theory. Way back in the beginning, the gene pool hadn't been corrupted yet, so prohibitions against marrying close relatives weren't needed. So my theory is that Adam and Eve had given birth to girls as well.

Our you sure God didn't make other people, beside Adam and Eve? I wouldn't be surprised if Garden of Eden wasn't only place God was creating people at that time.
 
Upvote 0

CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN

My dad died 1/12/2023. I'm still devastated.
Jul 1, 2007
18,024
5,590
Native Land
✟399,097.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Right now, in 2014, siblings can have children with no significantly increased risk of genetic defects. Despite all of this alleged corruption of the gene pool.

Let hope that doesn't become a major issue.
 
Upvote 0