Homosexuality

[Gusoceros]

Just remember, we are supposed to stay celibate, while they can get married and live great lives.

Sad, isn't it? More like pathetic, take the Conservative perspective, high horse trash out to the dump.

The last I understood- there was nothing stopping you from getting married, and starting a family.

Is this not the case?

G

 

[MercuryAndy]

In actuality- my point has been made- and that is, that there is a HUGE difference between same sex couples, and hetero couples. Your positioning to make the point of procreation a menial side point aside- does not minimize the difference, or the design, or the impact of it. The difference is so great- that with same sex couples only, our entire race would die out- there would be no more children.

To the point of "what about sterile couples???" anomolies dont undo design, or the difference- this is not a valid argument against why the couples are different.

In addition to procreation, I cited a few other differences between the 2 couples in my essay. Procreation is a big enough reason to cite complete difference between the 2 couples though. What that means is this: the 2 couple types- are not the same.

G

Same sex couples can have children.

 

[Gusoceros]

Hence sexual orientation is of little practical import as far as salvation goes

We are not judged by our temptations, rather by our actions.

G

 

[Gusoceros]

Same sex couples can have children.

Not by themselves they cant- further driving the point that without the help of the opposite sex- this is an impossibilty, proving the difference in the couples.

G

 

[EnemyPartyII]

In actuality- my point has been made- and that is, that there is a HUGE difference between same sex couples, and hetero couples. Your positioning to make the point of procreation a menial side point aside- does not minimize the difference, or the design, or the impact of it. The difference is so great- that with same sex couples only, our entire race would die out- there would be no more children.

Who ever said, anywhere, for the briefest moment, that those of us on the side of granting homosexual couples equal rights, think that EVERYONE has to be in a same sex relationship?

Its like this...

Should people be allowed to get married?

Yes.

A)Heterosexual couples who want kids?

Yes

B)Heterosexual couples who DON'T want kids?

Yes

C)Heterosexual couples who CAN'T have kids?

Yes

D)Homosexual couples?

Sure, because they bring to, and get from, the exact same advantages/benefits, and have the same right to, comiting to a spiritual bonding with a partner of their choice, JUST LIKE B + C

So again, suggesting that the species would die out as a result of homosexual marriage is utterly ridiculous. News for you, accepting homosexual relationships as having the same commitment and benfits as marriage, won't change homosexuality rates by 1% of 1% of 1%.

Procreation is a big enough reason to cite complete difference between the 2 couples though. What that means is this: the 2 couple types- are not the same.

No. If you can't explain the difference between homosexual couples and heterosexual couples who don't/can't/won't have children, your argument is completely intelectually dishonest.

Now hey, maybe you'll shock us all, and actually come up with a logical reason to consider the relationship between a married infertile hetero couple, and any monogamous, partnered, homosexual couple, as inherently different. I welcome you to try, because I hope and pray that there IS actually a logical basis for all the anti-homosexual sentiment out there. The thought that its baseless bigotry that drives so much misery makes me weep at how messed up humanity is, so please, do your best...

But saying "design", simply doesn't do it.

So until you give us a logically, and internally consistent reason to consider the two different, I will continue to call you on being either illogical, or intentionally misrepresentative.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

The last I understood- there was nothing stopping you from getting married, and starting a family.

Is this not the case?

Not to the person I want, no.

 

[Gusoceros]

Who ever said, anywhere, for the briefest moment, that those of us on the side of granting homosexual couples equal rights, think that EVERYONE has to be in a same sex relationship?

Its like this...

Should people be allowed to get married?

Yes.

A)Heterosexual couples who want kids?

Yes

B)Heterosexual couples who DON'T want kids?

Yes

C)Heterosexual couples who CAN'T have kids?

Yes

D)Homosexual couples?

Sure, because they bring to, and get from, the exact same advantages/benefits, and have the same right to, comiting to a spiritual bonding with a partner of their choice, JUST LIKE B + C

So again, suggesting that the species would die out as a result of homosexual marriage is utterly ridiculous. News for you, accepting homosexual relationships as having the same commitment and benfits as marriage, won't change homosexuality rates by 1% of 1% of 1%.

No. If you can't explain the difference between homosexual couples and heterosexual couples who don't/can't/won't have children, your argument is completely intelectually dishonest.

Now hey, maybe you'll shock us all, and actually come up with a logical reason to consider the relationship between a married infertile hetero couple, and any monogamous, partnered, homosexual couple, as inherently different. I welcome you to try, because I hope and pray that there IS actually a logical basis for all the anti-homosexual sentiment out there. The thought that its baseless bigotry that drives so much misery makes me weep at how messed up humanity is, so please, do your best...

But saying "design", simply doesn't do it.

So until you give us a logically, and internally consistent reason to consider the two different, I will continue to call you on being either illogical, or intentionally misrepresentative.

Um no- the context of the point- is in proving the difference between 2 couple types.

The point of procreation, and a few other differences is on the table- and HAS NOT BEEN ADDRESSED by you at this juncture. You have to show- how these 2 completely different couple types, are the same- that the difference of procreation is irrelevant to the couple types being the same- because from where I sit, that is a huge- race stopping difference, in addition to the other points.

G

 

[Gusoceros]

Not to the person I want, no.

This is not an intellectually honest answer- you are not denied the right of marriage- what you want is something you cant physically have- the closest you can come physically, is cohabitation.

Can you - in addition to the right of marriage- can you cohabitate?

G

 

[EnemyPartyII]

The point of procreation, and a few other differences is on the table- and HAS NOT BEEN ADDRESSED by you at this juncture. You have to show- how these 2 completely different couple types, are the same- that the difference of procreation is irrelevant to the couple types being the same- because from where I sit, that is a huge- race stopping difference, in addition to the other points.

I'll count to 10, and try to keep my cool, NOT say anything that will atract the moderators, and ask, as sweetly as possible, that you respond to what I write, rather than misinterpreting or ignoring what I say...

1.Marriage is about a bond shared by two people, who want to make a commitment to pledge each other their lifetime of support, monogamy and love.

2. Traditionally, marriage has been seen as the appropriate setting for 2 people to become parents and raise children, because of the social stability that was generally attached to the concept. However, this is not, and never has been, the REASON for marriage, it is merely the traditional setting in which child bearing has occured. There is nothing, anywhere, to suggest that either ALL married couples should have children, OR, that all children should be born to married parents.

3. However, although marriage is often seen as the archetypical relationship from which to pro-create, there is NOTHING to say that marriage should be denied to couples who cannot, or will not, have children.

4. The expectation of childless couples to be able to make a comitment of marriage to each other DESPITE their inability, or wish, not to have children, in NO WAY suggests that these couples wish, in any way, for Child desiring, or child capable, couples to have as many children as they may wish.

Do you agree with the above 4 points?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

you are not denied the right of marriage

I am denied the right to marry the person I want.

what you want is something you cant physically have

Can't PHYSICALLY have? How is it possible to PHYSICALLY have an abstraction?

 

[Gusoceros]

I am denied the right to marry the person I want.

What you want, is not marriage- because it is with a same sex person. What you want, is cohabitation.

Can't PHYSICALLY have? How is it possible to PHYSICALLY have an abstraction?

I explained it in my essay. Im beginning to think, that you did not read it.

G

 

[EnemyPartyII]

What you want, is not marriage- because it is with a same sex person. What you want, is cohabitation.

There is more to marriage than just living together. I have a partner and a flatmate and a dog, all in the same house. We all co-habitate. I only want to marry one of them though.

 

[IamAdopted]

No. You are being deliberately contrarian...

The Bible, in its entirety, is written by man. Some of those wruitings, are the documentations of man's interaction with God, but some of it fails to logically link up with what we know about God.

Just because its "In the Bible" is NOT enough evidence that it is the word of God. You have to use your brain sometimes and think about the contextual back ground.

UI'll say it again, Jesus DIDN'T say "These are the books you shall consider the Bible"... the decision of what to invclude in the Bible was made rather arbitrarily, and for reasons political as much as spiritual, by early Christian bishops around the year 300 AD.

Just because Paul's writings are traditionally included in the book that says "Bible" on the cover, is not, in itself, reason enough to consider them the word of God. By your logic for defining what is "Scripture"... the name of the publishing company and editors and translators are ALSO Scripture, they're "in the Bible" after all

I believe Paul was explaining what he sincerely thought to be God's message. Is that the same thing as speaking the inerrant word of God?
None that I can think of. If you can think of any differences, please tell me

Did not Jesus tell His apostles that He would give them power from on High that would lead them into all truth? And did not God speak through the men of old such as Prophets and did He not come and then fulfill those prophecies? Some are yet fulfilled for they speak of the end of the age. And did Not Jesus give them the authority to go and Preach in His name? So therefore as God spoke through the prophets of old He spoke through the Apostles which are recorded and given to us as Scripture.. God breathed. So just because you want to believe that Paul was not speaking on Christ behalf does not make it so. No where in all of scripture old and new is it written that this lifestyle is condoned.. So therefore it is really your choice of Making Jesus Lord of your life or you making what you believe and feel as Lord of your life.. This choice is really yours to make.. One will lead to life the other to death.

 

[Myriah]

There is more to marriage than just living together. I have a partner and a flatmate and a dog, all in the same house. We all co-habitate. I only want to marry one of them though.

You said the word "flatmate"... so I might presume you are from the UK? I thought the UK had same sex unions which are like marriage?

Doesn't the UK have that option? Just curious....

 

[Gusoceros]

There is more to marriage than just living together. I have a partner and a flatmate and a dog, all in the same house. We all co-habitate. I only want to marry one of them though.

Really? What will be different than what you have now?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

You said the word "flatmate"... so I might presume you are from the UK? I thought the UK had same sex unions which are like marriage?

Doesn't the UK have that option? Just curious....

Australian, and no, we don't have that option.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Really? What will be different than what you have now?

Legal, social, and spiritual recognition

 

[IamAdopted]

Legal, social, and spiritual recognition

Spiritual recongnition from whom?

 

[Gusoceros]

Legal, social, and spiritual recognition

Ah- so now we are getting somewhere- you dont want what is marriage- you want legal, social, and spiritual recognition. You want something from others because of your relationship- right?

Legal: you can arrange all of this now through an attorney, without changing the definition of marriage for everyone.

Social: Tell your friends you are in a lifelong commitment.

Spiritual: God calls the homosexual act a sin.

G

 

[Myriah]

Australian, and no, we don't have that option.

Oh, I didn't know that.

Ever seen a kangaroo? Those must be cute!