San Francisco Officials Marry Same Sex Couple

[chalice_thunder]

Has any body noticed that it is the "RIGHT" of same sex couples to have their "OWN" biological children? And it is "unconstitutional" to deny that basic civil right?​

Okay, let 'em have their own biological kids----TOGETHER!!!!!!!!!! No surrogates, no sperm donors; just the two of them as a "couple".
Now ...how is that going to work?​

Now we must answer the question; what is the purpose of human life? In conjunction with that question is the question; How do we propogate the human species? Doesn't this show how unnatural homosexuality is?​

ick

 

[Outspoken]

There are a number of people one here with double standards. You being perhaps the biggest. And, as usual, your mental leaps don't impress me.

All I care to say is that your morals are yours and mine are mine. I'd hold myself up to scrutiny against you in a second. No comparison. And please stay away from my children because you apparently think it ould be ok to ask them out on a date, or for sex, or if they'd like you to buy them a six pack. Sorry, but my 7-year old isn't ready for that. [edited by moderator for flaming]

And you can call it what you want. Expressing hatred toward others for no good reason is hate. Blind hatred is hate. [edited by moderator for flaming]

[edited by moderator]

"And please stay away from my children because you apparently think it ould be ok to ask them out on a date, or for sex, or if they'd like you to buy them a six pack. Sorry, but my 7-year old isn't ready for that."

Seeing as your post was edited for flaming, I'll just respond to this conclusion. I was using YOUR logic to make my conclusions, not mine. That's usually how I address people with outlandish claims or points, I take them to the logical conclusion. As your conclusion here is correct, you can see how illogical your points are. thanks for helping me out

 

[Outspoken]

Not to be a smart allic or anything (boy I am gonna get in trouble for this one...) But doesn't the bible say that when you have a disagreement to have a witness with you?

In a civil matter yes. In this instance it is a debate of ideas and thus no witness (ie another person standing beside you to colberate (sp?) evidience) is not nessisary (sp?)

 

[Susan]

.:Mod hat on:.

:rules:

In addition to the list of Christian Forums general rules, the following are prohibited in the News & Curent Events forum, and ammended.

1) Publically questioning, mocking, undermining or disagreements with a staff member's post related to discussion moderating

2) Directing posts towards individuals, instead of the topics and issues being discussed

3) Taunting any member

4) Sarcasm or hostile posts

5) Starting threads directed at another member

6) Using immature, tounge-in-cheek or otherwise disrepectfull names for anyone

7) Quoting someone's posts from other threads

Please keep these rules in mind as you popt. Thank you.

 

[Paula]

I agree with this wholeheartedly, but I think we should worry about OUR justification for OUR actions, before we worry about purging our neighbor from their sin. I can't imagine the spiritual pride a person would have, to make them think they are pure enough to be able to forget themselves, and meddle in the lives of others and their sins. If someone asks me as a Christian for advice or counsel in their life, I will give it according to the Bible, but I refuse to step out of my life and the sin contained within it, in order to enter someone else's life and start housekeeping. I think Jesus would call me a hypocrite if I did so.

Reminds me of when the Lord was being judged unfairly and was called a hypocrite for breaking Jewish Law on the Sabbath. His response was to teach about judgments themselves and how to make them fairly. So, in this case, perhaps Jesus would actually say, "Judge not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment." (John 7:24)

It is not uncommon for the guilty not to want people to judge them. The type of judgment that is condemned is the harsh, bitter, fault-finding type which points out other's sins while committing the exact, same ones. However, given the example of John 7, in making judgments, we must always remember the limitations of our view of others. That what appears may not actually be the case. We must try to look beyond the external shell and seek out the eternal ends, and then we may be able to judge ourselves and others, not according to appearance, but to judge with righteous judgment.

 

[Firscherscherling]

There are a number of people one here with double standards. You being perhaps the biggest. And, as usual, your mental leaps don't impress me.

All I care to say is that your morals are yours and mine are mine. I'd hold myself up to scrutiny against you in a second. No comparison. And please stay away from my children because you apparently think it ould be ok to ask them out on a date, or for sex, or if they'd like you to buy them a six pack. Sorry, but my 7-year old isn't ready for that. [edited by moderator for flaming]

And you can call it what you want. Expressing hatred toward others for no good reason is hate. Blind hatred is hate. [edited by moderator for flaming]

[edited by moderator]

"And please stay away from my children because you apparently think it ould be ok to ask them out on a date, or for sex, or if they'd like you to buy them a six pack. Sorry, but my 7-year old isn't ready for that."

Seeing as your post was edited for flaming, I'll just respond to this conclusion. I was using YOUR logic to make my conclusions, not mine. That's usually how I address people with outlandish claims or points, I take them to the logical conclusion. As your conclusion here is correct, you can see how illogical your points are. thanks for helping me out

Actually, my logic is that children are not yet of the age of accountability, something you have argued against repeatedly on this thread and others for quite some time. This has lead me to be of the opinion that you are a danger to children.

And in terms of logic, you have never shown me any. For example, you are of the opinion that if we allow same sex couples to marry, we "by logic" have to allow someone to marry a kitten, or a child, or their mom.

Legally, a pagan, white supremecist, swinger, child abusing, raping, thieving, murdering, conjoined twin, mixed race, infertile couple with cystic fibrosis may marry without restriction and with the full rights and benefits offered, and may use the term of marriage. Some of these characteristics are genetic, some are voluntary, some are accidental. Some fly in the face of the Christian definition of marriage, some don't. So, according to your logic, under our current system, any two people should be and would have to be allowed to marry no matter what, regardless of genetics, choice, religious faith, affliction or morality. Oh, my. What happened? Your logical assertions just fell apart.

 

[Outspoken]

Actually, my logic is that children are not yet of the age of accountability, something you have argued against repeatedly on this thread and others for quite some time. This has lead me to be of the opinion that you are a danger to children.

And in terms of logic, you have never shown me any. For example, you are of the opinion that if we allow same sex couples to marry, we "by logic" have to allow someone to marry a kitten, or a child, or their mom.

Legally, a pagan, white supremecist, swinger, child abusing, raping, thieving, murdering, conjoined twin, mixed race, infertile couple with cystic fibrosis may marry without restriction and with the full rights and benefits offered, and may use the term of marriage. Some of these characteristics are genetic, some are voluntary, some are accidental. Some fly in the face of the Christian definition of marriage, some don't. So, according to your logic, under our current system, any two people should be and would have to be allowed to marry no matter what, regardless of genetics, choice, religious faith, affliction or morality. Oh, my. What happened? Your logical assertions just fell apart.

"something you have argued against repeatedly on this thread and others for quite some time. "

No, I have not said that in this thread at all. Please reread my posts. I have said their parents can give concent for them. You need to read what people are posting.

"we "by logic" have to allow someone to marry a kitten, or a child, or their mom.
"

*sigh* again overdramitizing the issue. I have never made reference in this thread to someone marrying a kitten. Yes, if you allow one sexual preversion protected under the law, you must allow them all.

"Some fly in the face of the Christian definition of marriage, some don't."

No, none of those change what the definition of what marriage is, though some of them are sin. The flawed part of your argument here is you are mixing apples and oranges. The basis for your argument seems to be that 1. homosexuality is genetic, thus people should be allowed to marry because they cannot control it. My reply is that then all sexual preversions should be allowed and protected under the law and all should have the same legal benefit. I'm using your logic and drawing it out to its logical conclusion. When you acutally have something to reply with other then flaming or tangents, let me know.

 

[Firscherscherling]

"something you have argued against repeatedly on this thread and others for quite some time. "

No, I have not said that in this thread at all. Please reread my posts. I have said their parents can give concent for them. You need to read what people are posting.

"we "by logic" have to allow someone to marry a kitten, or a child, or their mom.
"

*sigh* again overdramitizing the issue. I have never made reference in this thread to someone marrying a kitten. Yes, if you allow one sexual preversion protected under the law, you must allow them all.

"Some fly in the face of the Christian definition of marriage, some don't."

No, none of those change what the definition of what marriage is, though some of them are sin. The flawed part of your argument here is you are mixing apples and oranges. The basis for your argument seems to be that 1. homosexuality is genetic, thus people should be allowed to marry because they cannot control it. My reply is that then all sexual preversions should be allowed and protected under the law and all should have the same legal benefit. I'm using your logic and drawing it out to its logical conclusion. When you acutally have something to reply with other then flaming or tangents, let me know.

On your apparent beleif that children have accountability. I'll let your words speak for themselves. Deny all you want.

As for your "we have to allow all perversions if we allow one perversion" logic....

Nice try at avoiding my last post. Am I to assume that you consider only homosexual sex to be a perversion? What about every other so-called perversion, hmmmm? If my wife and I choose to have multi-partner sex, or wife swap, is that a perversion? How about S&M? Anal sex? Oral sex? Can you please provide me of your list of perversions and then demonstrate that those perversions are all illegal? If you can't it seems your argument falls apart doesn't it? Your slipperuy-slope falls on its face.

You yourself claim that if one 'perversion' is a legal part of marriage, they all have to be made legal. OK, then, I'll be waiting for you to fight for the legalization of homosexual marriage.

And a response you your bblical definition of marriage, that't easy to overcome. Teh Bible forbids my atheist marriage, yet you say nothing. The Bible forbids divorce and remarriage except in the case of adultery, yet you say nothing.

So if I choose to be a divorced and remarried atheist, who wife-swaps and has S&M parties, all of which are about choice and all of which violate the Biblical rules of marriage, you say nothing. And we haven't been forced to legalize sex with children. Uh, oh. Your logical argument just keeps getting worse and worse.......

 

[Outspoken]

On your apparent beleif that children have accountability. I'll let your words speak for themselves. Deny all you want.

As for your "we have to allow all perversions if we allow one perversion" logic....

Nice try at avoiding my last post. Am I to assume that you consider only homosexual sex to be a perversion? What about every other so-called perversion, hmmmm? If my wife and I choose to have multi-partner sex, or wife swap, is that a perversion? How about S&M? Anal sex? Oral sex? Can you please provide me of your list of perversions and then demonstrate that those perversions are all illegal? If you can't it seems your argument falls apart doesn't it? Your slipperuy-slope falls on its face.

You yourself claim that if one 'perversion' is a legal part of marriage, they all have to be made legal. OK, then, I'll be waiting for you to fight for the legalization of homosexual marriage.

And a response you your bblical definition of marriage, that't easy to overcome. Teh Bible forbids my atheist marriage, yet you say nothing. The Bible forbids divorce and remarriage except in the case of adultery, yet you say nothing.

So if I choose to be a divorced and remarried atheist, who wife-swaps and has S&M parties, all of which are about choice and all of which violate the Biblical rules of marriage, you say nothing. And we haven't been forced to legalize sex with children. Uh, oh. Your logical argument just keeps getting worse and worse.......

"I'll let your words speak for themselves. Deny all you want."

okay, quote me specifically in this thread where I said childeren can give concent or else admit you're wrong.

"Am I to assume that you consider only homosexual sex to be a perversion?"

Yes, so if you, as a S and M person want to file that and claim legal benefits for it, you should be able to do that. You're talking about SPECIFIC sexual acts, so if you want to add that in, they yes, if homosexuality is up for legal benefits, then you should be able to file as a certain type of sexual preversion and get legal benefits, just as homosexuals do. I have never said it should be illegal, good try at a strawman though, but again, you're mistaken.

"Teh Bible forbids my atheist marriage, yet you say nothing."

No, the definition of marriage includes one man and one woman. It says you should not be yoked together with an unbeliever, I agree, but that has nothing to do with the legality of it. Have you legally filed your marriage as an atheistic marriage with the state? If not your logic is flawed as usual

"you say nothing."

I really don't think you understand logic at all. I will still say what you're donig is a sin, but we are talking about a legal recognition with benefits of that legal recognition. If you want to file with your state or with the government as a wife swapper you might get in trouble (ie polyogmy (sp?) ) thus you again prove my argument. Thanks

 

[Firscherscherling]

"I'll let your words speak for themselves. Deny all you want."

okay, quote me specifically in this thread where I said childeren can give concent or else admit you're wrong.

"Am I to assume that you consider only homosexual sex to be a perversion?"

Yes, so if you, as a S and M person want to file that and claim legal benefits for it, you should be able to do that. You're talking about SPECIFIC sexual acts, so if you want to add that in, they yes, if homosexuality is up for legal benefits, then you should be able to file as a certain type of sexual preversion and get legal benefits, just as homosexuals do. I have never said it should be illegal, good try at a strawman though, but again, you're mistaken.

"Teh Bible forbids my atheist marriage, yet you say nothing."

No, the definition of marriage includes one man and one woman. It says you should not be yoked together with an unbeliever, I agree, but that has nothing to do with the legality of it. Have you legally filed your marriage as an atheistic marriage with the state? If not your logic is flawed as usual

"you say nothing."

I really don't think you understand logic at all. I will still say what you're donig is a sin, but we are talking about a legal recognition with benefits of that legal recognition. If you want to file with your state or with the government as a wife swapper you might get in trouble (ie polyogmy (sp?) ) thus you again prove my argument. Thanks

Oh. It’s just so easy.

Me:

“are you the person who has argued that children of all ages can consent?”

You

“yup, that's me. How can a child not give concent (sic), or a parent of that child not be elgiable to give concent for that child?”

Doesn’t appear to assumaethe parent has anything to do with it, and as you know, we had a heated discussion about the issue on another thread, You were very clear in saying you think children of any age can consent on their own.

I’ll try to make this as simple as possible for you. I already went and registered my marriage with all of the benefits. You see, they don’t ask about any of my so-called ‘perversions’. My marriage carries with it any old ugly perversion I want, except of course if I want my partner to be of the same sex. So yes, I have been to the courthouse, and my marriage, my sinful, against-god, atheistic, gay-loving marriage has been aproved with all rights and priveledges. Every single one. In fact, if I’d wanted, I could have appeared at the courthouse in drag with my wife on a leash. It is fully registered. I even get to call it a marriage.

And please provide me the definition of marriage and show that it is universal. Remember, you just said the Bible’s definition isn’t relevant when you said it’s condemnation of my marriage was irrelevant. Condemnation of atheistic marriage is part of the biblical definition. So if you say it all has to do with the definition, where is this definition? To whom does it belong? Did you just make it up?

So, again, by your own logic you have proven that all types of marriage, no matter the so-called perversion involved, should be and must be made legal. Condemn the logic all you want. It belongs to you.

Shall I forward a link to Human Rights Watch. You need to sign the petition in favor of gay marriage.

 

[Outspoken]

Oh. It’s just so easy.

Me:

“are you the person who has argued that children of all ages can consent?”

You

“yup, that's me. How can a child not give concent (sic), or a parent of that child not be elgiable to give concent for that child?”

Doesn’t appear to assumaethe parent has anything to do with it, and as you know, we had a heated discussion about the issue on another thread, You were very clear in saying you think children of any age can consent on their own.

I’ll try to make this as simple as possible for you. I already went and registered my marriage with all of the benefits. You see, they don’t ask about any of my so-called ‘perversions’. My marriage carries with it any old ugly perversion I want, except of course if I want my partner to be of the same sex. So yes, I have been to the courthouse, and my marriage, my sinful, against-god, atheistic, gay-loving marriage has been aproved with all rights and priveledges. Every single one. In fact, if I’d wanted, I could have appeared at the courthouse in drag with my wife on a leash. It is fully registered. I even get to call it a marriage.

And please provide me the definition of marriage and show that it is universal. Remember, you just said the Bible’s definition isn’t relevant when you said it’s condemnation of my marriage was irrelevant. Condemnation of atheistic marriage is part of the biblical definition. So if you say it all has to do with the definition, where is this definition? To whom does it belong? Did you just make it up?

So, again, by your own logic you have proven that all types of marriage, no matter the so-called perversion involved, should be and must be made legal. Condemn the logic all you want. It belongs to you.

Shall I forward a link to Human Rights Watch. You need to sign the petition in favor of gay marriage.

*sigh* I never said they could, I asked you YOUR reasons for saying they cannot. Please reread it in context, thanks.

"You were very clear in saying you think children of any age can consent on their own."

No, can you please link me, thanks.

"You see, they don’t ask about any of my so-called ‘perversions’."

and right now it is quite against the law, but then again people always break the law when they want change. So using your logic I can go out and murder people because I want that to be legal. The funny thing is you don't even see your own double standard.

"Condemnation of atheistic marriage is part of the biblical definition. "

I disagree. The marriage definition set forth in the bible says don't marry a nonbeleiver because it will cause your marriage to be in strife. As for the definition of marriage, its one man and one woman.


"So, again, by your own logic you have proven that all types of marriage, no matter the so-called perversion involved, should be and must be made legal"

*sigh* yes, according to your logic that's right. Gays, incest, pedophillia, and every type of sexual perversion should be legally protected and sanctioned under the law with benefits. I disagree with you and say it should only be a man and a woman.

 

[Firscherscherling]

*sigh* I never said they could, I asked you YOUR reasons for saying they cannot. Please reread it in context, thanks.

"You were very clear in saying you think children of any age can consent on their own."

No, can you please link me, thanks.

"You see, they don’t ask about any of my so-called ‘perversions’."

and right now it is quite against the law, but then again people always break the law when they want change. So using your logic I can go out and murder people because I want that to be legal. The funny thing is you don't even see your own double standard.

"Condemnation of atheistic marriage is part of the biblical definition. "

I disagree. The marriage definition set forth in the bible says don't marry a nonbeleiver because it will cause your marriage to be in strife. As for the definition of marriage, its one man and one woman.


"So, again, by your own logic you have proven that all types of marriage, no matter the so-called perversion involved, should be and must be made legal"

*sigh* yes, according to your logic that's right. Gays, incest, pedophillia, and every type of sexual perversion should be legally protected and sanctioned under the law with benefits. I disagree with you and say it should only be a man and a woman.

No, you can't go out and murder people because you think it should be legal. Just more of your dramatics.

So tell me, why is it against the law for them to ask me about my 'perversions', and not against the law for them to as homosexuals about theirs. (And since you don't seem ot get it, none of this logic or the use of the word perversion mean anything to me. It all belongs to you. It makes me laugh to watch you tear apart your own arguments.)

And *sigh*, acts involving victims should not be made legal. Homosexual marriage doesn't invovlve a victim (unless you are talking about a hate monger stealing the right away), so you can keep your pedophilia BS to yourself. But that brings us back to your belief that children can consent to sex and why I want you to stay away from my kids.

And on your biblical definition of marriage, the double standards abound. Seems you love to have that menu from which you pic right and wrong based on what you find convenient today.

 

[Outspoken]

No, you can't go out and murder people because you think it should be legal. Just more of your dramatics.

So tell me, why is it against the law for them to ask me about my 'perversions', and not against the law for them to as homosexuals about theirs. (And since you don't seem ot get it, none of this logic or the use of the word perversion mean anything to me. It all belongs to you. It makes me laugh to watch you tear apart your own arguments.)

And *sigh*, acts involving victims should not be made legal. Homosexual marriage doesn't invovlve a victim (unless you are talking about a hate monger stealing the right away), so you can keep your pedophilia BS to yourself. But that brings us back to your belief that children can consent to sex and why I want you to stay away from my kids.

And on your biblical definition of marriage, the double standards abound. Seems you love to have that menu from which you pic right and wrong based on what you find convenient today.

"No, you can't go out and murder people because you think it should be legal. Just more of your dramatics. "

Why not? That's exactly what you did from a legal standpoint.

"And *sigh*, acts involving victims should not be made legal. Homosexual marriage doesn't invovlve a victim "

Again, you're jumping to a conclusion. what makes you think anyone is a victim?


"But that brings us back to your belief that children can consent to sex and why I want you to stay away from my kids."

LOL I asked YOU a question. I did not make an assurtion. You just aren't reading my posts at all are you?

"And on your biblical definition of marriage, the double standards abound. "

woo hoo, red herring it is.

 

[Firscherscherling]

"No, you can't go out and murder people because you think it should be legal. Just more of your dramatics. "

Why not? That's exactly what you did from a legal standpoint.

"And *sigh*, acts involving victims should not be made legal. Homosexual marriage doesn't invovlve a victim "

Again, you're jumping to a conclusion. what makes you think anyone is a victim?


"But that brings us back to your belief that children can consent to sex and why I want you to stay away from my kids."

LOL I asked YOU a question. I did not make an assurtion. You just aren't reading my posts at all are you?

"And on your biblical definition of marriage, the double standards abound. "

woo hoo, red herring it is.

I will assume you are stumped as you failed to say a single thing of substance in this post. Just ramblings.

If you don't know what a victim is, I again implore you to stay away from my children.

 

[SFMichael]

So using your logic I can go out and murder people because I want that to be legal.

I am reporting you and will start reporting anyone who continues to compare me to a murderer, directly or indirectly.

AGAIN -- murder is not consensual and intends harm on another human being. Being gay has nothing to do with other human beings. Having gay sex is consensual and does not harm any other human beings.

There is a HUGE difference between anything that purports to harm another and homosexual relationships which do not.

Michael

 

[Susan]

Thread locked.

For egregious violations of the following rules:

[noflame]
[notroll]

In addition to the list of Christian Forums general rules, the following are prohibited in the News & Curent Events forum, and ammended.

1) Publically questioning, mocking, undermining or disagreements with a staff member's post related to discussion moderating

2) Directing posts towards individuals, instead of the topics and issues being discussed

3) Taunting any member

4) Sarcasm or hostile posts

5) Starting threads directed at another member

6) Using immature, tounge-in-cheek or otherwise disrepectfull names for anyone

7) Quoting someone's posts from other threads