San Francisco Officials Marry Same Sex Couple

[Gunny]

What is the Bible's definition of marriage? For this cause a man (male) shall leave his mother and father and shall cling to his wife (female) and the two shall become one flesh. As stated above, sexual relations are only moral within marriage. Any sexual activity outside of marriage is a sin, including homosexuality but not limited to.

Amen.

 

[Wilfred of Ivanhoe]

Implying that for other causes there are other definitions.



What of the seven other biblical definitions of marriage? Why leave them out?

Why not include marriage meaning a victim of rape and her attacker? why leave out polygamy? Why leave out levirate marriage?



I think it is very fortunate that I am married to Alex so therefore I commit mo “sin” in your eyes. (not that I really care what you think)



Not true. People are called bigots when they attempt to promote discrimination of another group basing their desire to discriminate solely on their personal beliefs.

It is accurate to call people obsessed with the sex lives of others, perverts.







Imagine what you could accomplish if your motivation were love and not hate.

You say you abhor the sin of others but you work to restrict the civil rights of those you hate.



Truth meaning to come to believe exactly what you demand people believe.

I do not hate you, in fact, I love you. I believe the Bible to be the inerrant word of God and that those who truly love God will not play word games to justify their lifestyle in their own eyes. I pray that God would open your eyes and show you His truth, not your own. I do not demand you to adhere to this book, but God does.

You don't have to care what I think of you, but on the day of judgement, we must both answer for our lifestyle. I pray that God opens your eyes to the truth that you may be found in Christ.

 

[Lanakila]

But what does it matter what the world does? Are you Christians trying to make America a theocracy? Do you plan on closing down all the liquor stores, and preventing all inappropriate content even the soft kind from being available to adults? Are you going to clean up tv and hollywood so that no cussing is allowed at all? Really there is nothing new under the sun like Solomon the wise man said. The world isn't going to hell in a handbasket. 90% of Americans claim to be Christians. You guys have the majority for goodness sakes. Why must you force the minority to live up to your legalistic Christian standards?

 

[SFMichael]

welcome to my ignore list.
*plonk*

Oh no! I'm being ignored!

That is really what we all want.

Michael

 

[Outspoken]

I think the pivotal idea in that limited definition is intolerance. No one (not even msjones) is saying you must stop hating homosexuals. You are completely free to hate despise and rail against anyone or any group you like.



Popular conception of the word bigot includes hatred and attempts of one group or individual to restrict the freedoms of others often through intimidation, or dishonest means. It is not you position that prompts anyone to apply the label of “bigot” rather it is your goal and tactics. You repeated dishonest assertion that gays and lesbians are not being denied civil rights for example, your repeated attempts to use a disease to justify discrimination and your (implied) assertion that homosexuality is the equivalent of “pedophilia, zoophilia, polygamy, and even cannibalism.” Are prime examples of intolerance and thus prompting the use of the word bigotry.

thats very illogical. Homosexuality, at a behavioral (and as some scientists would have to beleive they are both genetic) thus you are confronted with the same problem. The same link is there for incest as well polygamy. Its no tintolerance for you to be forced to see where your actions logically end up. To allow homosexuality the same benefits as a married couple, then you MUST legally and logically open it up to other "combinations" such as people who are related, children with the "okay" from their parents, multiple partners (ie polygamy). You can't have your cake and eat it too. You get the bad with the "good". Sorry to break it to you. The same thing happen with God. You have free will, thus you can choose to not be a christian and bash God, or even deny his existance.

 

[xMinionX]

and even cannibalism.

That seems like a bit of a stretch...

 

[Outspoken]

But what does it matter what the world does? Are you Christians trying to make America a theocracy? Do you plan on closing down all the liquor stores, and preventing all inappropriate content even the soft kind from being available to adults? Are you going to clean up tv and hollywood so that no cussing is allowed at all? Really there is nothing new under the sun like Solomon the wise man said. The world isn't going to hell in a handbasket. 90% of Americans claim to be Christians. You guys have the majority for goodness sakes. Why must you force the minority to live up to your legalistic Christian standards?

This is the isolationist mindset. Hint: LAWS effect EVERYONE. Umm, as for your 90% "claiming" I give the old thumbs down. I would agree with Bill Gram when he said about 85% of those are not true christians. They have relgion and not relationship. Big difference. To quote an old saying, "talk is cheap." Christians do not have the majority.

 

[Polycarp1]

thats very illogical. Homosexuality, at a behavioral (and as some scientists would have to beleive they are both genetic) thus you are confronted with the same problem. The same link is there for incest as well polygamy. Its no tintolerance for you to be forced to see where your actions logically end up. To allow homosexuality the same benefits as a married couple, then you MUST legally and logically open it up to other "combinations" such as people who are related, children with the "okay" from their parents, multiple partners (ie polygamy). You can't have your cake and eat it too. You get the bad with the "good". Sorry to break it to you. The same thing happen with God. You have free will, thus you can choose to not be a christian and bash God, or even deny his existance.

To be honest, Outspoken, I can see some sense to the "Slippery Slope" point. But there's a quite clear line being drawn -- two unrelated adult human beings who have fallen in love and chosen to marry, on the one hand, without reference to their gender, and a long shopping list of reasons against the alternatives. Two persons does not equal three or more persons, for example. While polygamy is a Biblically sanctioned lifestyle, if not a Biblically prescribed one (cf. Jacob with Leah and Rachel, or David and his wives), it's a quite different category of relationship than monogamous marriage, whether straight or gay. About incest, I think we've dealt with the arguments against it already. I appreciate that you didn't bring up pedophilia or inappropriate behavior with animals, but the argument that they don't involve a mutual agreement between adult human beings probably ought to be made for completeness' sake.

In short, while there is a point to the argument of setting a precedent, I think there's plenty enough grit on that slope to keep it from being as slippery as many who are concerned might suppose.

 

[Outspoken]

To be honest, Outspoken, I can see some sense to the "Slippery Slope" point. But there's a quite clear line being drawn -- two unrelated adult human beings who have fallen in love and chosen to marry, on the one hand, without reference to their gender, and a long shopping list of reasons against the alternatives. Two persons does not equal three or more persons, for example. While polygamy is a Biblically sanctioned lifestyle, if not a Biblically prescribed one (cf. Jacob with Leah and Rachel, or David and his wives), it's a quite different category of relationship than monogamous marriage, whether straight or gay. About incest, I think we've dealt with the arguments against it already. I appreciate that you didn't bring up pedophilia or inappropriate behavior with animals, but the argument that they don't involve a mutual agreement between adult human beings probably ought to be made for completeness' sake.

In short, while there is a point to the argument of setting a precedent, I think there's plenty enough grit on that slope to keep it from being as slippery as many who are concerned might suppose.

From a legal standpoint, it is not a slippery slope, but a logically applicable. Just as no prayer in schools (freedom from relgion) lead to no quiet time in school (again, freedom from relgion), so this is the same way legally. From a allowence of homosexuality standpoint (biblically) you can bring up both pediophillia and inappropriate behavior with animals because the same people that say homosexuality is not a choice and genetic also say that about the former.

 

[SFMichael]

you can bring up both pediophillia and inappropriate behavior with animals because the same people that say homosexuality is not a choice and genetic also say that about the former.

No, theny don't. This is either a tragically misinformed statement or an outright lie.

Michael

 

[Volos]

Originally posted by : Wilfred of Ivanhoe

I do not hate you, in fact, I love you. I believe the Bible to be the inerrant word of God and that those who truly love God will not play word games to justify their lifestyle in their own eyes. I pray that God would open your eyes and show you His truth, not your own. I do not demand you to adhere to this book, but God does.

You don't have to care what I think of you, but on the day of judgement, we must both answer for our lifestyle. I pray that God opens your eyes to the truth that you may be found in Christ.

Promoting discrimination against a group of law abiding people simply because of your personal beliefs about that group of people is not love it is bigotry. Calling hate and contempt love does not magically transform it into love no matter how much you pretend.



Discrimination biblically justified is still discrimination

Hate biblically justified is still hate

Prejudice biblically justified is still prejudice

Bigotry biblically justified is still bigotry

Intolerance biblically justified is still intolerance

Contempt biblically justified is still contempt.



And pretending what you are doing is love is just a lie.

 

[Volos]

Originally posted by : Outspoken

thats very illogical. Homosexuality, at a behavioral (and as some scientists would have to beleive they are both genetic) thus you are confronted with the same problem.

Homosexuality is not a behavior. Just as heterosexuality is not a behavior. One can be gay or straight without ever having sex and when not having sex one’s sexual orientation does not change.



You have made this claim many times yet offer nothing to support it.



There exist no scientific studies that show homosexuality is the result of any psychological, familiar, or social feature. There is no evidence to support the notion that sexual ordination is a choice. That homosexuality is the result of how one was raised, of ones relationship with one’s same sex parent, of ones relationship with one’s opposite sex parent, the result of childhood sexual trauma, a result of “recruitment” of having an absent father/mother, of fluoride in toothpaste.



What evidence that does exist points to homosexuality (and heterosexuality and bisexuality) to being an inborn trait.

The same link is there for incest as well polygamy. [/qute]

No it is not, and pretending one exists does not prove there is one.

Its no tintolerance for you to be forced to see where your actions logically end up. To allow homosexuality the same benefits as a married couple, then you MUST legally and logically open it up to other "combinations" such as people who are related, children with the "okay" from their parents, multiple partners (ie polygamy).

It is not a logical conclusion.



Truthfully I don’t’ really care if polygamy rights groups mobilize to see equal rights. I have yet to see any reason at all why they should not have the same rights aside from personal prejudice.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. You get the bad with the "good". Sorry to break it to you. The same thing happen with God. You have free will, thus you can choose to not be a christian and bash God, or even deny his existance.

I was unaware I was “basing” any deity much less the Christian God. Though I suspect your definition of “bashing” consists of not agreeing immediately and fully with your personal prejudices.

 

[lared]

I think the mayor of San Francisco is laughing all the way to the bank.

What a bundle they are making.

 

[La Bonita Zorilla]

I think the mayor of San Francisco is laughing all the way to the bank.

What a bundle they are making.

Probably not much-marriage license fees are at best a break even deal for local government.

However, you bring up an excellent point: opening marriage to LGBTs will help the economy. There's hotel ballrooms, churches, gown and tux merchants, honeymoon resorts, caterers, musicians, etc. who all stand to gain from the rising tide of love. It is definitely good for business.

 

[Polycarp1]

Probably not much-marriage license fees are at best a break even deal for local government.

However, you bring up an excellent point: opening marriage to LGBTs will help the economy. There's hotel ballrooms, churches, gown and tux merchants, honeymoon resorts, caterers, musicians, etc. who all stand to gain from the rising tide of love. It is definitely good for business.

I'm hearing whatsisname -- Barry McGuire? -- singing "If you're going to San Francisco..." running through my mind after that.

 

[lared]

Probably not much-marriage license fees are at best a break even deal for local government.

However, you bring up an excellent point: opening marriage to LGBTs will help the economy. There's hotel ballrooms, churches, gown and tux merchants, honeymoon resorts, caterers, musicians, etc. who all stand to gain from the rising tide of love. It is definitely good for business.

If money is that important to you, then I guess so.

PS-- $30. for a piece of paper, and thousands of people flying into SF is more then a break even deal for the local government.

 

[Firscherscherling]

he's a hetero who chose to be homo.

So in the case of the logic you use, a man who abuses a boy is a homosexual, period. And according to your same logic, he can be exclusively heterosexual his entire life, but it is the single act of same-sex abuse that identifies his sexual orientation. Therefore your studies say all abusers of boys are gay. How convenient for you.

This reminds me again, to a large degree, of racism. You demonize a particular group based on arbitrary bigotry. Studies are created to show how that subgroup is inferior and how acceptance of them will lead to our destruction. The Bible is used to show how God agrees. Then you work to establish convoluted definitions to support your position.

White man, white woman = White baby
Black man, black woman = Black baby
Black man, white woman = Black baby
White man, black woman = Black baby

And just being black is so very bad and corrupting that no matter the ratio of African blood in your veins, you are still considered a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse].

So in the first place, being gay makes you less than human, less deserving of rights and liberties. And in ther second place, if at any time you have sexual contact with a same sex person regardless of motive, you are homosexual.

All while saying that there is no such thing as a homosexual, just a heterosexual who commits homosexual acts.

Must be a real challenge to keep all of this evil convoluted mess straight.

 

[Gunny]

[nospam]

 

[Gunny]

[nospam]

 

[Wilfred of Ivanhoe]

Promoting discrimination against a group of law abiding people simply because of your personal beliefs about that group of people is not love it is bigotry. Calling hate and contempt love does not magically transform it into love no matter how much you pretend.



Discrimination biblically justified is still discrimination

Hate biblically justified is still hate

Prejudice biblically justified is still prejudice

Bigotry biblically justified is still bigotry

Intolerance biblically justified is still intolerance

Contempt biblically justified is still contempt.



And pretending what you are doing is love is just a lie.

Not true. A better answer is that you and I have a vastly different authority for truth. Trusting in yourself as the ultimate judge of truth, you judge me as you do. However, I trust God alone for truth. His Word is the foundation for all my beliefs. Therefore, you see me as pretending, however, you do not know me and my beliefs sufficiently enough to make this arbitrary judgement upon me.