Why Gay Marriage is Inevitable

[Rifleman]

luknikfan wrote: You can't compare Islam and Christianity. Islam is a remarkably unified and "holisitc" faith - having been around 1400 years plus - in which a mosque is a mosque wherever you go in the world. Sunni and Shia preachers sharing the same facility.

Christianity is a wildy divergent faith with thousands of sets of beliefs. Chritianity also quickly morphs itself to the times. A short term strength, but a dubious quality for a long-term existence. Hence the "Emergent Church".

But no, I don't see Islam ever embracing gay marriage. I do see most of Christianity, if not all, eventually so doing.

Sure I can. Christianity, for the most part isn't a compilsory religion, like Islam. Jesus knew that this would be the case and prophecied about it:

1 Timothy 4
1 But the Spirit saith expressly, that in later times some shall fall away from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons,

2 through the hypocrisy of men that speak lies, branded in their own conscience as with a hot iron;

3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by them that believe and know the truth.

Also:

[b]Matthew 13: 24 Another parable set he before them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man that sowed good seed in his field:

25 but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares also among the wheat, and went away.

26 But when the blade sprang up and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.

27 And the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? whence then hath it tares?

28 And he said unto them, An enemy hath done this. And the servants say unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?

29 But he saith, Nay; lest haply while ye gather up the tares, ye root up the wheat with them.

30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather up first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them; but gather the wheat into my barn.

Islam is not constrained by an enemy, and conversion to Islam is rarely voluntary. It's not liberal Christian Churches that thrive, they die, like how ignoring scripture on Homosexuality has split the Episcopal Church.

There are also Churches that strive to restore the original faith and doctrine, and which I am a member. While some apostacize and fall away, some remain. I also have noticed, especially since I have been posting here, there is quite a bit of common ground among Churches that profess Christianity. here is quite a reluctance to discuss it, but it does exist.

I have also noticed the tendancy of Secularists, of which I believe you are, to try and exterminate Christianity. They insist upon indoctrinating the children of Christians in Atheism and Hedonism, and the only reason that they succeed, is because of the tolerance of Christians. I am warnig you, Islam will NOT be tolerant at all towards Secularists. I will not be surpised. Secularists have long enjoyed the benefits and tolerance of Christian cultures and have trashed them at the very same time.

[Orin]

I would be fine with that, except, it's an issue we have voted on, and gay marriage lost

We voted on segregation, too. And, it won.

[BFDwarf]

Heres the deal, Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period. Words mean things.
Marriage aint perfect, too many end in divorce, destitution and really hurt feelings. not to mention the poor kids of that union.
Having said that, I will give support to gay folks having most all the rights as a couple, as do heterosexuals. As long as there exist legal ramifications if they split up. Hell, I dont care if gay couples share property rights or S.S. benifits. That means there better be a contractual agreement.
But marriage? No. There has to be a line somewhere, and "If it feels good, do it" aint the line.
Seriously, you see no problem letting Gays be married? Cool. Then you also believe that a Father can marry his daughter. You also support Polygamy with all your heart. Heck, that guy in Fresno can marry his goat. Why? Because who the hell are you to say that hot monkey love with a goat isnt pure and wonderful?
I draw a line at marriage being between a man and a woman. Where is your line?

[luknikfan]

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Sure I can. Christianity, for the most part isn't a compilsory religion, like Islam. Jesus knew that this would be the case and prophecied about it:

There are also Churches that strive to restore the original faith and doctrine, and which I am a member.

Nuff said man. How many "Christians" for centuries have been trying to restore the "original" faith.

Let's see, Martin Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Mary Baker Eddy, Joseph Smith, the Reverand Wright, Marciel Lefevbre, the Rev. Moon. The list goes on and on and on. And on again..

You are not the first, and certainly will not be the last. It's really a futile effort IMO.

And those "emergent' young evangelicals today - coming forward and supporting gay marriage as Rev. Bakker is doing - claim to be representing the original Christianity too. Non-judgemental, loving, inclusive. Neither Jew or Gentile, slave or free man..

[Orin]

Seriously, you see no problem letting Gays be married? Cool. Then you also believe that a Father can marry his daughter. You also support Polygamy with all your heart.

They used that arguement on interracial marriage, too. Is that why we have gays clamoring for legal recognition of their unions? Because we allowed Blacks, Whites and Browns to mingle?

[dcannady]

It's an insidious concept that has developed, in the land of the free and the home of the brave, that to not be adamantly opposed to a thing is the same as actively promoting it. Minding one's own business is just no longer acceptable in this brave new world.

[Rifleman]

It's all about morality. Whatever dspicable thing leftists want to do, they attempt to trash those who oppose them on moral grounds by linking the moral objections with religion, and then use misconceptions about the idea of "separation of church and state " to promote that. One, there are morals outside of religion.

Americans have a right to vote against issues based upon morals and even their religious beliefs. Without morals, there is no right or wrong! That is exactly how Obama could not only vote for three times, but actively promote letting a surviving infant from an abortion die or oppose givng them at the very least, an anesthetic.

To compare institutional racism, i.e. segregation, to the difference between a name change from civil unions to gay marriage is an intentional mischaracterization. There is no comparison.

The other argument is the same thing, it is based upon morality, if you have no morality, or are entangled in moral relativity, there is no argument against any other kind of marriage. There is also no argument against granting such based upon age or relations. Consent? That goes away as well. If a parent grants a minor child's consent for an arranged marriage, there will be nothing to stop it. Isn't that exactly what happened at Mt. Carmel? If you are a Democrat, and have few if any morals, you can pick and choose your particular morals based upon the argument you are making at the particular moment, which is exactly what occurs. Thus you can attacks the morals of people who oppose gay marriage, (also know as the majority) while ignoring the fact that those who want gay marriage are not doing it out of moral principles, but out of spite.

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by Rifleman

It's all about morality. Whatever dspicable thing leftists want to do, they attempt to trash those who oppose them on moral grounds by linking the moral objections with religion, and then use misconceptions about the idea of "separation of church and state " to promote that. One, there are morals outside of religion.

I don't agree that it is all about morality. But I do agree that leftist's will trash those who oppose them.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Americans have a right to vote against issues based upon morals and even their religious beliefs. Without morals, there is no right or wrong!

Your implication is that without religion there are no morals. I disagree with you there. And I think it is a mistake to oppose homosexual marriage on the religious basis that it is immoral. You can argue that men are free to choose and that the choice to engage in homosexuality is as act against God. But such homosexuality exists in a variety of animals who you do not credit as thinking. Therefore there acts would seem to be part of the nature that God created.

I will not judge homosexuality to be wrong or immoral. It, however is not the "norm" in nature nor among man. The homosexual agenda seems to be to have it regarded as the same norm as heterosexuality. And that would be an exception in all of nature.

Your argument seems to be based on morality alone. I think it should be based on practicality. Homosexuality is natural. But, unlike heterosexuality, it cannot be prolific. Therefore it should not be regarded to be the same as heterosexuality. The rights and benefits can be the same between "civil union" and "marriage". But that are not the same, and should not be. Homosexual activist are trying to remove all differences under the terminology. I am against that.

[Zebediah]

Originally Posted by Rifleman

There are also Churches that strive to restore the original faith and doctrine, and which I am a member. While some apostacize and fall away, some remain..

Original faith and doctrine included the greeting of each Christian with the Kiss of Peace, men and women included; and the practice was limited to House Churches, none of these mass auditoriums but to be celebrated in domesticity. Is this the original practice to which you intend to return?

[Rifleman]

jtdc wrote: I don't agree that it is all about morality. But I do agree that leftist's will trash those who oppose them.

The arguments are all about morality. Equal rights are also a form of morality. My point was that the morality is skewed by tactics of those activists regarding the arguments of most anything. In gay marriage, even though those proponants are arguing to allow gay marriage,(actually, they aren't argueing to "allow" gay marriage, they are argueing to force gay marriage) on the basis that opposing gay marriage is "only" done so on a religious basis. That's obviously not true, and I will use you as an example. On the other hand, since they reject religious reasons as valid, why do they desire the official title of marriage anyway? By that point you realize that the desire is not fairness but dominance and destruction of the culture that includes religous influences. On a practical means, the fact that there is a capability in a heterosexual marriage for biologically reproduced children, I agree, a so-called "gay marriage" is not the moral equivalent, and never will be. To force the public to make them moral equivalents will harm real marriage.

As for animals, they are different, they are not moral, because they don't have souls, or a moral conscience. If homosexuality in animals, which I would hesitate to use "sexuality", is a justification for imposing gay marriage upon a society where the people are intended to consent to their own laws, then so would cannibalism, mass murder, and rape be justified.

As for practicality, I am all for that argument, it's just that the "other guys" who insist upon supporting gay marriage and its forced imposition insist that is the only basis for opposing it. It's like abortion, evolution, Universal health care, and every other pet liberal issue. here is NO other reason, (they say) to opposing these plans. than religion. i point out time and time again that marriage is a contract, and being a contract, it is subject to rules regarding whether it will be recognized by a civil, (NOT FEDERAL) authority. You can make any contract you wish with another, but to have them recognized and enforced or arbitrated by the civil authority is to follow the law. I have no right to force the civil authority to honor a contract that is outside the law. But, instead of making arguments and changing people's minds and thus change the law, they want to usurp the law and the civil authority, on the basis of an imagined right. Even in Iowa, and Massachusetts. In California, they desire to overturn their own Constitution.

Thus jtdc, my first argument, that being changing laws irregardless of the will of the people nor long established means is destructive to the country, is based upon practicality.

Zeb wrote: Original faith and doctrine included the greeting of each Christian with the Kiss of Peace, men and women included; and the practice was limited to House Churches, none of these mass auditoriums but to be celebrated in domesticity. Is this the original practice to which you intend to return?

Sure! What's the problem with that? We have a mixture of auditoriums and House Churches. The early Christians often worshiped in the Synagouges as well, as some continued to be praticing Jews. I don't understand exactly what you are getting at. There is nothing to dismiss the use of auditoreums, either as often the early churches used other facillities, than just homes. The Apostle Paul had Timothy circumsized, so he would be well received when he taught the Jews "The Way". Timothy's mother was Jewish, while his father was a Greek. The apostles preached outside the Temple, in front of pagan temples, just about anywhere.

[Orin]

As for animals, they are different

This is the second time on two different threads from two very intelligent people that it has been said and implied that we are not animals. Are we friggin' plants? Minerals? Komrade is a chunk of granite, but the rest of us? Kingdom what, people? Animalia. I'm done picking nits. God made gay dolphins, killer whales, wood ducks etc. But not people, eh? The wood ducks decided to be gay?

[luknikfan]

Originally Posted by Zebediah

Original faith and doctrine included the greeting of each Christian with the Kiss of Peace, men and women included; and the practice was limited to House Churches, none of these mass auditoriums but to be celebrated in domesticity. Is this the original practice to which you intend to return?

Its actually impossible to pin down an origianl faith for Christians because of all the early "heresies". Its clear that within a generation Christians totally differed on the teachings of Jesus and what they meant. The Trinity, nature of Christ, incarnation, which writings were inspired and which not.

I am not Mormon, but in some way their argument that the church apostasized virtually out of the gate makes most sense. Reading history and all.

[Orin]

You two Christian bashers need to bring it back to gay marriage. That's what the topic is about. We could say ugly things about faithless scum, too, but that's not the topic at hand. Start a separate Christian-bashing thread or get the mods to give you your own cat box, like they did the Komrade. Trying to argue things reasonably using religion doesn't work. Trying to argue things reasonably by trashing religion doesn't work either. Go take that shit to Komrade's Cat Box where it belongs.

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by Rifleman

The arguments are all about morality. Equal rights are also a form of morality.

"Unequal rights" were an offshoot of the morality of religion. KKK based their bigotry on Biblical references. Slavery was Biblical.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

In gay marriage, even though those proponants are arguing to allow gay marriage,color=red](actually, they aren't argueing to "allow" gay marriage, they are argueing to force gay marriage)[/color] on the basis that opposing gay marriage is "only" done so on a religious basis.

You seem to be spinning the argument here. They are not arguing to force homosexuals to get married, they are trying to force heterosexuals to allow homosexuals to marry.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

On the other hand, since they reject religious reasons as valid, why do they desire the official title of marriage anyway?

Because at this point in time government give specific privileges to "married people" that are not afforded to any other group of people. I believe that is primarily what they want. Some of those benefits should be given to non-married couples if they meet certain standards. The right of transfer of property to a spouse is one. Hospital visitation is another.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

To force the public to make them moral equivalents will harm real marriage.

I disagree with that statement. The laws around "marriage" are primarily for the children. Homosexuals being married will take nothing away from heterosexuals who are married, except that which you take away from yourself in your mind. It is the parity in adopting, surrogate parenting and artificial insemination that homosexuals will gain if they are granted full parity. And that, IMHO, is not the best environment to set as the goal for children.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

As for animals, they are different, they are not moral, because they don't have souls, or a moral conscience.

A totally religious perspective based souley on your belief.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

If homosexuality in animals, which I would hesitate to use "sexuality", is a justification for imposing gay marriage upon a society where the people are intended to consent to their own laws, then so would cannibalism, mass murder, and rape be justified.

You are using the same strategy homosexual supporters use in invoking racial segregation when you bring in cannibalism, mass murder, and rape. The tendency for same-sex relations exists in nature. Therefore it is natural. The difference is in all other species it does not result in procreation. Humans, having science to help them, can get around nature. And that is going against nature.

[BFDwarf]

Originally Posted by dcannady

It's an insidious concept that has developed, in the land of the free and the home of the brave, that to not be adamantly opposed to a thing is the same as actively promoting it. Minding one's own business is just no longer acceptable in this brave new world.

Its also an insidious concept that to disagree with something makes you a Racist, Homophobe or right wing christian wacko! To paraphrase "all it takes for a country to go down the tubes, is for good men to mind their own business".
I am all for leaving people to their own devices, but saying that I cant have an opinion about certain behaviors and how they effect society, is Bunk. I also have a right to work through my reprsentitives to make my feelings heard.
By the way, That guy in fresno with a goat, is registered at Hot Topics. Show him some love.

[Rifleman]

jtdc wrote: "Unequal rights" were an offshoot of the morality of religion. KKK based their bigotry on Biblical references. Slavery was Biblical.

That is not necessarily true. Christianity didn't authorize or condone slavery, it was that slavery was irrelevant to being a Christian. Christians alos allowed themselves to be slain by Romans, doesn't mean they were in favor of it.

jtdc wrote: You seem to be spinning the argument here. They are not arguing to force homosexuals to get married, they are trying to force heterosexuals to allow homosexuals to marry.

No spin, just a different choice of words.

jtdc wrote: Because at this point in time government give specific privileges to "married people" that are not afforded to any other group of people. I believe that is primarily what they want. Some of those benefits should be given to non-married couples if they meet certain standards. The right of transfer of property to a spouse is one. Hospital visitation is another.

Exactly, that is what civil unions do.

jtdc wrote: I disagree with that statement. The laws around "marriage" are primarily for the children. Homosexuals being married will take nothing away from heterosexuals who are married, except that which you take away from yourself in your mind. It is the parity in adopting, surrogate parenting and artificial insemination that homosexuals will gain if they are granted full parity. And that, IMHO, is not the best environment to set as the goal for children.

It is the part of damage to the culture. Is shacking up the equivalent of a traditional marriage? To diminish the standing of traditional marriage diminishes the commitment that the couple has towards their commitment. It is already been diminished causing soaring divorce rates, and that harms marriage as an institution. I also agree with you on children. Once forced recognition of gay marriage is established, it will be difficult to refuse adoption or any thing else to gay couples, no matter how justified the reason.

jtdc wrote: A totally religious perspective based souley on your belief.

So what are you saying? (Non-human) Animals are responsible for their actions? They feel and express guilt?

jtdc wrote: You are using the same strategy homosexual supporters use in invoking racial segregation when you bring in cannibalism, mass murder, and rape. The tendency for same-sex relations exists in nature. Therefore it is natural. The difference is in all other species it does not result in procreation. Humans, having science to help them, can get around nature. And that is going against nature.

Why do you say that? I have always seen other races as being as human as I am, not like other (non-human) animals. As for discrimination against gays being akin to racial discrimination, I am not advocating discrimination. If it IS the result of some birth defect, or psycological pathology, or simple a choice, or a combination of the three, I don't know. It seems there is evidence that the same defect will account for either a strong homosexual tendancy, or a strong homophobic tendancy. Who then is discriminating? I just don't want th culture or the legal basis of the United States torn apart on a whim, for the purpose of getting Democrats more power. I aslo don't want children damaged for the sake of a deceitful and incoherant philoshophy. And I didn't bring in cannibalism, mass murder, and rape as a strategy. For (non-human) animals, cannibalism, mass murder, and rape is also natural. However you are quite right, on some things it IS quite dangerous to go against nature. Just look at "octamom"! Is there now to be a movement to force society to finance the artifical fertilization of near double digit eggs and subsequent implantation of 8 of them at once? How does it harm your children or family?

[dcannady]

Originally Posted by BFDwarf

Its also an insidious concept that to disagree with something makes you a Racist, Homophobe or right wing christian wacko! To paraphrase "all it takes for a country to go down the tubes, is for good men to mind their own business".
I am all for leaving people to their own devices, but saying that I cant have an opinion about certain behaviors and how they effect society, is Bunk. I also have a right to work through my reprsentitives to make my feelings heard.
By the way, That guy in fresno with a goat, is registered at Hot Topics. Show him some love.

I have never suggested you were a racist or a homophobe. What I stated cuts both ways, as in the Liberal accusation that opposition to welfare comes from racism or greed.

But, it was you that equated indifference toward homosexuals marrying as being synonymous with supporting incest and bestiality. I don't even "support" gay marriage. I just don't care to see legislation used to sanction sin. What is one man's sin may not be that significant to another. Two-piece swimsuits on women should be outlawed according to some Christian beliefs.

Christians are too selective and diverse in what they consider "moral". For instance, the American Revolution was in direct violation of the following Biblical injunction:

Romans 13


1Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
6For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. 7Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.


That passage is the foundation upon which kings predicated the "Divine Right" to rule. It is an unequivocal admonition to submit yourself wholly to rulers and government. It is a sin to rebel against the government because "he", meaning the king or whatever, is a minister of God.

At the time that Paul wrote this, he was describing the Roman Emperor.

Now, it might be that you view this as less than binding rules and more like guidelines, but if you believe in eternal damnation how do you take that risk?

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by Rifleman

That is not necessarily true. Christianity didn't authorize or condone slavery, it was that slavery was irrelevant to being a Christian.

"Christianity" is primarily New Testament. So technically you are correct when you use the word "Christianity". But the Bible does endorse slavery and lists rules for it. Also, I'm not saying religion endorsed the KKK and such. I'm saying used religion as the source of their hatred.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

It is the part of damage to the culture. Is shacking up the equivalent of a traditional marriage? To diminish the standing of traditional marriage diminishes the commitment that the couple has towards their commitment.

Shacking up is an equivalent to marriage. It is no more damaging to traditional marriage and society than is divorce. And if a couple needs a marriage ceremony or license to remain true to each other, maybe they don't really have a commitment. I do not find the idea of a homosexual couple committing to each other in any way demeaning to heterosexuals committing to each other. Fidelity in either type of relationship is better for society.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So what are you saying? (Non-human) Animals are responsible for their actions? They feel and express guilt?

I have seen "guilt" expressed by cats and dogs. We tend to hold them accountable for their actions if they bite the wrong person to do their business on your carpet. If they were as unthinking as you seem to want to portray them they would have no loyalty to their owners and could not be trained.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Why do you say that?

It is the tying of other prejudices to this discussion I was referring to. The argument that Blacks were not allowed to marry whites solely because of their skin color is not the same as discrimination against homosexuals who cannot be identified just because of physical characteristics. And you using those same tactics does not help the argument.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

However you are quite right, on some things it IS quite dangerous to go against nature. Just look at "octamom"!

Exactly!

[BFDwarf]

Originally Posted by dcannady

I have never suggested you were a racist or a homophobe. What I stated cuts both ways, as in the Liberal accusation that opposition to welfare comes from racism or greed.

But, it was you that equated indifference toward homosexuals marrying as being synonymous with supporting incest and bestiality. I don't even "support" gay marriage. I just don't care to see legislation used to sanction sin. What is one man's sin may not be that significant to another. Two-piece swimsuits on women should be outlawed according to some Christian beliefs.

Christians are too selective and diverse in what they consider "moral". For instance, the American Revolution was in direct violation of the following Biblical injunction:

dcannady, I didnt mean to imply that that you were calling anyone a racist, etc. I stated that in a general way, thats what happens when a person stands up to certain "Progressive" veiws. There is a big difference between wanting to be left alone and indifference. I really could care less what a persons sexual orientation is, to a point. If I feel that an action or activity effects society at a fundumental level, I must speak out.
Regarding biblical reference, I am not a christian and dont read the bible. My opinion comes from secular conservatism.

[NightMgr]

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So what are you saying? (Non-human) Animals are responsible for their actions? They feel and express guilt?

There is some research that suggests that some animals do exhibit guilt like behaviors and see to have a concept of fairness.

But, it's a difficult question since we don't read minds.

By the same token, all I have to suggest you have feelings of guilt and a feeling of responsibility for your actions would be guilt like behaviors.