California prop 8:

#126
#126
I don't understand the problem. Extend gays the same rights as married people, and call it something other than marriage. That way, marriage may continue to be between one man and one woman (although the divorce rate in the US makes a mockery of this institution), and gays get the same rights.
 
#127
#127
gsvol said:
OK, I'll bite, what is one of the reason 'our' religion came into existence???

(but recognize your religion and my religion may not be the same and I am not a "religionist.")
Click to expand...

Its not a test. Modern day religion was formed to combat problems evident of man. How it turned out or who controlled what is not part of the discussion.

One reason for the tenets you have been taught, in whatever church you worship, is that homosexuality is wrong. Why? it was wide spread practice to much of the world before Judaism and Christianity took hold. The only way to make it stop was to make it an evil and shame people away from it. So it begs the question given that one of the reasons the religions you know was formed was to stop the practice why would homosexuals want to be a part of it?

Its like saying I want to be part of UT football games but take the game itself out and make it a parade. You still have the volwalk, tailgating, stadium, band, etc.... but what would be the point?
 
#128
#128
MontereyVol said:
One reason for the tenets you have been taught, in whatever church you worship, is that homosexuality is wrong. Why? it was wide spread practice to much of the world before Judaism and Christianity took hold. The only way to make it stop was to make it an evil and shame people away from it. So it begs the question given that one of the reasons the religions you know was formed was to stop the practice why would homosexuals want to be a part of it?
Click to expand...
You might want to check whatever sources are providing your historical information on this issue. Homosexuality has never been widely practiced. Has it been glorified, glamorized, and indulged in by certain persons over history? Yes. Most of these supposedly large spread and accepted occurrences have taken place among persons and castes who have become so removed from the common man and, thus, so consumed with themselves that they have also committed plenary of other licentious acts. Yet, these acts were never even close to the norm for the majority of the populations of the time.
 
#129
#129
666 said:
I agree, IP. I would be best defined as an atheist, gs.
Click to expand...

So you say.

One could also say you are unaware of God.

Not trying to make any judgements here but if you have an open mind you could say the same, you are unaware of any divine being, correct??


lawgator1 said:
I nominate gsvol for "Most Likely to Quote Trite Sayings." In fact, I'm starting a thread.
Click to expand...

Hint, Don Quixote emptied the bedpan before placing it upon his head as a helmet before tilting at wind mills.

But let your conscience be your guide.

lawgator1 said:
You can't handle the truth.

I know I heard that somewhere. Prophesy?
Click to expand...

Prophesy you ask???

No, more like prophylaxy!

OrangeEmpire said:
It is ok because christians are the problem.

Duh!

:eek:k:
Click to expand...

What are a couple million less Christians in southeast Asia?

What are a couple million less Christians in southern Sudan??

What are a couple million less Christians in the Balkans?

Why would you say Christians are such a big problem?
 
#130
#130
666 said:
You've only got a little over 600 sins listed in the Bible to go through so you exclude those evil folks from marriage as well. Good luck because that's a lot of work!
Click to expand...

Or it could be you don't see the forest for the trees.:wacko:
 
#131
#131
therealUT said:
You might want to check whatever sources are providing your historical information on this issue. Homosexuality has never been widely practiced. Has it been glorified, glamorized, and indulged in by certain persons over history? Yes. Most of these supposedly large spread and accepted occurrences have taken place among persons and castes who have become so removed from the common man and, thus, so consumed with themselves that they have also committed plenary of other licentious acts. Yet, these acts were never even close to the norm for the majority of the populations of the time.
Click to expand...

There are fairy tales and then there is actual investigation.
 
#132
#132
666 said:
I thought an avatar was the picture I use. Are you asking about it or my name choice?

It's your own choice to whether marriage is a religious matter for you. They two don't have to go hand in hand. Why don't we eliminate marriages and just give everyone civil unions then? Is it really because you all don't want to have the same name as those icky gays?
Click to expand...

I was asking about the choice for your avatar. I imagine your username choice was made because it was provocative, perhaps your choice in Avatar was as well?
 
#133
#133
666 said:
Exactly, yet sinful Christians around the world are married everyday. He taught that all sins are equal except denying God. So should we stop overweight people, someone who lusts after someone else, or someone who doesn't respect their father from being married?
Click to expand...

Touche. I would however point out that being overweight, or not respecting your father has little to do with the actual marriage itself. Being in an intimate relationship is the act of sin for gay couples. Therefore being married is an extension of that sin in itself, so it sets it apart from those you mentioned. It would be as if the church is condoning that sin.
 
#134
#134
volinbham said:
The concept of marriage is a social creation - while it has legal connotations it also signifies a certain event. It has a symbolic as well as legal connotation.

If civil unions provided the same legal rights as marriage I can see that it is the choice of the people to determine the symbolic connotation of the word marriage since the people are the ones who infused the word with such a connotation.

If opponents are arguing against the connotation being changed then this is not an "equal rights" situation nor a separate but equal situation. It is a societal/cultural choice and should be in the hands of society (not the courts).
Click to expand...

This explains how I look at the issue (much better than I could have said it), I can't see denying gay people equal rights under the law. However I do believe it is an issue for states to decide themselves. This is how every other ordinance is handled as far as marriage is concerned isn't it?
 
#135
#135
therealUT said:
Is intolerance a bad thing? Why must we push for universal tolerance? If he is religiously opposed to homosexuality then so be it. Personally, I feel that homosexuality is perverse and those who practice such a lifestyle are psychologically deranged.

I could care less about extending marriage rights to homosexuals, because it will not affect my life, nor my family's life. However, I would not want my children to be taught in school that homosexuality is normal and should be accepted or embraced. I would also not want the government to try to force a child being put up for adoption or placed in a foster home to end up in a homosexual household.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Well said! As I previously stated if asked to vote I will not vote for it, but that is as far as I go as far as "speaking out" against gay people.
 
#136
#136
666, where is all the outrage over these gay high schools?

Is that not separate but equal?
 
#138
#138
therealUT said:
You might want to check whatever sources are providing your historical information on this issue. Homosexuality has never been widely practiced. Has it been glorified, glamorized, and indulged in by certain persons over history? Yes. Most of these supposedly large spread and accepted occurrences have taken place among persons and castes who have become so removed from the common man and, thus, so consumed with themselves that they have also committed plenary of other licentious acts. Yet, these acts were never even close to the norm for the majority of the populations of the time.
Click to expand...

You disappoint me sir. Go read up on the history of Greece and Mesopotamia and exactly how those men became warriors for their cities. Same with the middle eastern countries who still have a strong undercurrent as you should well know.
 
#139
#139
therealUT said:
Is intolerance a bad thing? Why must we push for universal tolerance? If he is religiously opposed to homosexuality then so be it. Personally, I feel that homosexuality is perverse and those who practice such a lifestyle are psychologically deranged.

I could care less about extending marriage rights to homosexuals, because it will not affect my life, nor my family's life. However, I would not want my children to be taught in school that homosexuality is normal and should be accepted or embraced. I would also not want the government to try to force a child being put up for adoption or placed in a foster home to end up in a homosexual household.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

And what if one of your children/future children were gay? Would you put them in an institution?
 
#141
#141
regardless of what's gone on over these last few pages, the protest against passage of Prop 8 has been purely politically correct and completely one-sided. If the homosexual lobby's outrage were genuine, they would have been protesting outside of black churches, Hispanic churches and mosques.

Did they do that? No. They focused on Rick Warren's church, the Mormons, and El Coyote Mexican Restaurant. They also continue to focus their rage on those groups.

The homosexual lobby itself has turned this from a "civil rights" issue into a political agenda and a convenient cudgel used to bash white Christians and Mormons (favorite targets of the left for a variety of issues).
 
#144
#144
God's Word says that our consciences bear witness to the law; people who have not heard the Gospel still know what is right and wrong. It seems to me that it will be hard for the homosexual to make an argument based on simple, obvious facts. Based on the way men and women are made and based on bodily functions, it's obvious what God intended and what he did not.

Romans 1

26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Click to expand...


Romans 2

13(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

14For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

16In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
Click to expand...
 
#145
#145
Daddy Gee said:
God's Word says that our consciences bear witness to the law; people who have not heard the Gospel still know what is right and wrong. It seems to me that it will be hard for the homosexual to make an argument based on simple, obvious facts. Based on the way men and women are made and based on bodily functions, it's obvious what God intended and what he did not.
Click to expand...

and how is that relevant to gays getting full civil unions/marriages?
 
#146
#146
There is no such thing as "gay marriage" if we are still a Christian nation. We were founded as a Christian nation, and I believe that we have drifted from that. I also believe that there will be consequences for our nation if we continue to abandon God. The question is not "Is God with our nation?", it's "Is our nation with God?"
 
Last edited:
#147
#147
Daddy Gee said:
There is no such thing as "gay marriage" if we are still a Christian nation. We were founded as a Christian nation, and I believe that we have drifted from that. I also believe that there will be consequences for our nation if we continue to abandon God. The question is not "Is God with our nation?", it's "Is our nation with God."
Click to expand...

We are not a theocracy and never have been. The nation was founded on the principles of personal liberty and justice, not conforming all into the current majority's beliefs.
 
#148
#148
Not a theocracy, but we were founded by Christian men who believed that they must have God and His Word in order to govern. We have been straying from that, especially for the last 60 years.
 
#149
#149
Question: Does anyone disagree that homosexuality goes against the laws of nature?
 
#150
#150
Daddy Gee said:
Not a theocracy, but we were founded by Christian men who believed that they must have God and His Word in order to govern. We have been straying from that, especially for the last 60 years.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to be a smart-ass, but you should read a little more into the writings of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top