_Vols in NC...get out and vote!!! Need your help. MAY 8

#301
#301
You're good people.

Marcus, if God never makes mistakes, then just how in the hell did the Kardashians happen?
 
#302
#302
Chris4Vols22 said:
How did I miss this earlier this month?

This is possibly THE worst thread ever created on VN. I loved how the OP thought he was so righteous in his post, and that everyone would agree with him.

It's completely insane that some people don't want the LGBT community to not have access to the same rights heterosexual couples get. I try to be respectful of everyone's opinion, but it's hard to find any other explanation besides bigotry. Seems like these people are so homophobic, that they will find anything to protest gays' own lives.

I'm sorry, OP, but as much of an awesome Christian that you think you are, you are an intolerant, ignorant, and close-minded bigot.

If church is separate from state, why do we need a government-issued document to validate a religious practice?
Click to expand...


If you bothered to read the entire thread, which its clear you didn't, you would have seen I have been deliberate about not judging anyone or trying to interfere with what they do in their own bedrooms. I've made it clear that their personal lives are none of my business and I honestly couldn't care less.
Marriage, however, is a different story altogether. It is not an institution created by man and we have no right to change the requirements thereof. God said marriage is a covenant between 1man, 1 woman and Himself. I simply attempted to make voters in NC aware of the upcoming vote and bring this issue to light. I have succeeded in doing that.
 
#304
#304
marcusluvsvols said:
If you bothered to read the entire thread, which its clear you didn't, you would have seen I have been deliberate about not judging anyone or trying to interfere with what they do in their own bedrooms. I've made it clear that their personal lives are none of my business and I honestly couldn't care less.
Marriage, however, is a different story altogether. It is not an institution created by man and we have no right to change the requirements thereof. God said marriage is a covenant between 1man, 1 woman and Himself. I simply attempted to make voters in NC aware of the upcoming vote and bring this issue to light. I have succeeded in doing that.
Click to expand...

Actually, marriage is an institution created by man. When you make such an outrageous claim, the burden of proof is upon you to divulge all evidence to support such a claim.
 
#306
#306
So if the government is out of the marriage business is 2 men and one woman ok? Or the other way arround? Should we do away with the age of consent? And how young is to young? How many is to many in the group marriage?

And finally by what authority do we base our decisions?
 
#307
#307
orangeslice13 said:
So if the government is out of the marriage business is 2 men and one woman ok? Or the other way arround? Should we do away with the age of consent? And how young is to young? How many is to many in the group marriage?

And finally by what authority do we base our decisions?
Click to expand...
I'll get into this tomorrow. I'm about to eat dinner.
 
#314
#314
orangeslice13 said:
So if the government is out of the marriage business is 2 men and one woman ok?
Click to expand...

Yes.

orangeslice13 said:
Or the other way arround?
Click to expand...

Yes.

orangeslice13 said:
Should we do away with the age of consent? And how young is to young? How many is to many in the group marriage?
Click to expand...

Well, if you are grounding your ideas of marriage in the Bible, then it would only be consistent to do away with the age of consent (Mary was what, 13, 14 years old; Joseph was in his 70s?)

orangeslice13 said:
And finally by what authority do we base our decisions?
Click to expand...

The authorities of FREE-WILL and REASON!
 
#315
#315
As much as I hate to admit it, os raises a pretty valid argument.

If the standard definition of marriage is between a man and a woman, ignoring the religious aspect of it, then how wide would we broaden the definition? I am all for LGBT (<-did i do that right?) rights, but gay marriage has always confused me. While I respect the rights of gay people to do whatever they want, I have always known that homosexuality is not natural.

I will go ahead and end this argument before it starts. If you believe in evolution, then you cannot believe that homosexuality is a natural trait. You could make an argument for bisexuality, though.
 
#317
#317
Also, can I marry my dog? Because that would be so much less trouble. Then I could probably take a life insurance policy out on him if I managed to get him a job. I could collect that puppy (no pun intended) in another 5-10 years and be set for a while.
 
#318
#318
Thrasher865 said:
As much as I hate to admit it, os raises a pretty valid argument.

If the standard definition of marriage is between a man and a woman, ignoring the religious aspect of it, then how wide would we broaden the definition? I am all for LGBT (<-did i do that right?) rights, but gay marriage has always confused me. While I respect the rights of gay people to do whatever they want, I have always known that homosexuality is not natural.

I will go ahead and end this argument before it starts. If you believe in evolution, then you cannot believe that homosexuality is a natural trait. You could make an argument for bisexuality, though.
Click to expand...

Who declares that the standard definition of marriage is between one man and one woman? Or, even between a man and a woman?

There were some 18th Century writers who defined marriage as a lifelong sexual-relationship.

Also, as for the 'natural trait' aspect. How many times in your life have you been sexually attracted to another individual of your same sex and have chosen against that attraction? Do you still think homosexuality is a choice?
 
#319
#319
Thrasher865 said:
As much as I hate to admit it, os raises a pretty valid argument.

If the standard definition of marriage is between a man and a woman, ignoring the religious aspect of it, then how wide would we broaden the definition? I am all for LGBT (<-did i do that right?) rights, but gay marriage has always confused me. While I respect the rights of gay people to do whatever they want, I have always known that homosexuality is not natural.

I will go ahead and end this argument before it starts. If you believe in evolution, then you cannot believe that homosexuality is a natural trait. You could make an argument for bisexuality, though.
Click to expand...


Nature disagrees with you.

Female Komodo Dragon Has Virgin Births | LiveScience
 
#320
#320
therealUT said:
Who declares that the standard definition of marriage is between one man and one woman? Or, even between a man and a woman?

There were some 18th Century writers who defined marriage as a lifelong sexual-relationship.

Also, as for the 'natural trait' aspect. How many times in your life have you been sexually attracted to another individual of your same sex and have chosen against that attraction? Do you still think homosexuality is a choice?
Click to expand...

Then Thrasher and his dog should be ok.

I've admitted openly to being an alcoholic sober for over four years. Everyday I want to drink but don't. Is that a choice?
 
Last edited:
#321
#321
marcusluvsvols said:
If you bothered to read the entire thread, which its clear you didn't, you would have seen I have been deliberate about not judging anyone or trying to interfere with what they do in their own bedrooms. I've made it clear that their personal lives are none of my business and I honestly couldn't care less.
Marriage, however, is a different story altogether. It is not an institution created by man and we have no right to change the requirements thereof. God said marriage is a covenant between 1man, 1 woman and Himself. I simply attempted to make voters in NC aware of the upcoming vote and bring this issue to light. I have succeeded in doing that.
Click to expand...

Ok, fair enough. I obviously didn't read the whole thread, but I see what you're saying now. The issue is that you're trying to force a religious criteria for a government issue. It's not your fault or anything, it's the way the system is set up and interpreted.

So my real question is why not allow LGBTs to have equal rights because of a religious barrier in a government issue? Why are you saying the government should make this official policy? What are they gaining from making it a religious issue as opposed to letting them have a marriage on their own accord? Seriously, what are you or anyone gaining by trying to pass this bill?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top