Gay Marriage

[Famine]

Homosexual anal intercourse carries a high risk of disease, this is recognized in Scripture where gay men are said to receive in their bodies the due penalty for their error

Isn't it funny how gonorrhoea, syphilis, chlamydia, HIV and PID can all be transmitted through vaginal intercourse? How peculiar that a girl's first cervical smear test should occur soon after she first has penetrative vaginal intercourse, since Human Papilloma Virus is also transmitted this way.

Or right, but only anal intercourse carries a "high risk of disease". I forgot.


Where does God stand (sit, float about ethereally) on the issue of intersex?

Intersex individuals have a mal or female genetic makeup, yet neither or both types of genital. Typically they are castrated soon after birth and given cosmetic surgery to develop a vagina since the penis is almost always absent or microscopic, despite often being genetically male. Individuals may have internalised, undeveloped testicles or undeveloped ovaries. Some, due to chiasma of the Y chromosome, have an XY make up (male), but lack the tdf (testis-determining factor) gene so develop poorly differentiated ovaries and a "pouch" vagina with no uterus. Legend has it that Jamie Lee Curtis is amongst their numbers.

Is it wrong for two genetically male people to marry, despite one of them having had involuntary surgery in their infancy to resemble a female AND BEING REGISTERED on the Birth Certificate as female? Is it wrong for two genetically male people to marry, despite one of them resembling a female due to lack of tdf, or androgen insensitivity syndrome? They both enjoy vaginal intercourse even though the vagina has no physical function whatsoever and both parties are XY.

And let's not even mention full-on trans-sexuals...


IS it only the anus God has something against, or do intersex individuals feel his wrath too?

 

[Arwin]

if anyone is interested in the gay marriage issue, read this (some parts omitted)



if anyone is interested, http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-f018.html

It claims that same sex marriages do not last, where that's not even possible right now in the U.S. There is no data, except a few years of data in countries like the Netherlands. I'll tell you something that we have data on though - the majority of marriages don't last, period. The marriages that tend to last longest are probably those with children, but again, there is no data on whether that makes a difference. What incentive is there for gay couples to invest in a long-term relationship, when there is no mutual benefit other than love? They cannot work towards a common goal, they cannot build a family. So how, exactly, do you think it makes any sense to compare? (And the two lesbian friends of my mother who have been together now for over 20 years, raising a total of 4 heterosexual children, without having even been married, give you their warmest regards.)

The only fair comparison would be to compare data on relationships that do not end in marriage. I doubt that you'll see heterosexual relationships lasting all that much longer if you'd compare them, especially if you take data from the same location.

"Marriage is a fundamental social institution that does not exist just for the emotional satisfaction of two individuals but for the greater good of the community"

Yes. I've said this. There are advantages of two people taking responsibility and care for each other for society. Same sex marriages do, however, not detract from this. As you've said yourself, love nor sex is required, and thus relevant. That means that it matters whether a man commits himself to someone else. Whether or not of the other is of the opposite or of the same sex, is thus irrelevant. Whether they actually have sex, is irrelevant. Whether they love each other is irrelevant. As long as they make the commitment, the requirements are fulfilled.

It is that and only that "which stands under the blessing or curse of God." If the latter even mattered, but since we're talking about the stateside of marriage, not the church-side, it doesn't.

"God will judge any society that institutes same sex marriages."

Yeah, like the Netherlands? The cesspool of evil, unhappy beings? Thanks. If we ever flood, we'll have global warming to thank rather than God. If you'd have said godforsaken, I'd say you were closer to the truth. In the sense that we've forsaken YOUR God, for one that has a good Heart AND a good Mind.

Once Christianity was a religion whose only pride lay in its humility and selfless, self-sacrificing love. These days, it seems that there are quite a few more good Samaritans than good Christians left in the world.

Amen.

 

[emad]

Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
Mat 22:39 And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Talk about isolating scriptures.

That seriously irked me right there. You say to love your neighbor as you love yourself, but you want limit their legal rights and discriminate against them.

Care to explain? Why can't they be entitled to the same rights you are entitled to? I'm not exactly a huge supporter of the gay/lesbian cause myself, but I'm also completely against limiting their rights by not allowing them to marry.

Not everyone in the world is a Christian. There's Bhuddists, Sikhs, Athiests, Hindus, Jews, Muslims - just to name a few. Why must the world's beliefs lay around the Christian standpoint? After all, there's religions that tolerate gays. From the way you've been saying it for the past few pages, it seems more as though you're saying that Marriage should be a strictly Christian thing. Does that mean that athiests can't marry? What about Bhuddists or Muslims?

 

[DQuaN]

Sorry to say this but.........


Has anyone asked their local preist and altar boy on their opinion

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Ooooh, this should be good.

[Deadpan]

Yes, MrktMkr1986. Why?

[/Deadpan]

No reason in particular -- just curious.

Has anyone asked their local preist and altar boy on their opinion

 

[Swift]

Isn't that what Christianity's all about, taking the Bible out of context?

And again it's all open to interpretation. Why is it impossible for him to be homosexual and be king?

No, Christianity is not about taking things out of context. At least not my faith

2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

2Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.

As you can see, you have to interete sripture with scripture. If you find one scripture verse to say something that is true of the word of God, there will be another scripture to verify it.

EMAD: It says love your neighbor as yourself. Do you want to marry yourself?

 

[emad]

EMAD: It says love your neighbor as yourself. Do you want to marry yourself?

No, but it basically means do unto others as you want done to yourself, right? That's what I was getting at. Sorry if it didn't come out that way.

 

[vladimir]

You don't understand christianity if you make a statement like that.

You totally missed the point of my post and have no clue what christianity is. Obviously.

You're opinion is fine if it's your opinion. But don't tell me what christianity is or isn't when it's quite obvious you don't understand what it is to be one. Certainly not an Apostolic Christrain.

aren't you the one who constantly claims that homosexuality was a choice, even if everyone else disagrees, including the homosexuals who are supposed to know?
you don't understand homosexuality, you know so little about it, yet you tell us its a choice.

so before you can want us to stop telling you what we think christianity is you should stop telling us what you think you know homosexuality was!


btw, i would be interested in the parts of the bible that say homosexuality was a sin. could you post them?

Well, of course not. I think it's wrong for gay people to raise children. Period.

so gay couples can get into a legal union, as long as this does not includes the right to adopt children?

No, a heterosexual brother is not allowed to marry his heterosexual sister. The argument for not allowing this should be obvious to anyone who has seen the effects of in-breeding. The point of the question is to get an answer to further this debate. Would you like to answer it or ignore it?

a) if in-breeding was the problem, then two brothers (or two sisters) should be allowed to marry, since in-breeding wouldn't be a problem, right?
b) if the same rules that applied for straight couples would apply for same sex couples, then two brothers or two sisters would not be allowed to marry, right?

either way, there shouldn't be any problem.

Gay men are nasty.

Lesbians rule!

That's my deep thought about gayness. 👍

you have apparently never, ever met a real lesbian.
(the lesbians from your porn collection do not count!

 

[MrktMkr1986]

aren't you the one who constantly claims that homosexuality was a choice, even if everyone else disagrees, including the homosexuals who are supposed to know?

Just out of curiosity (and I'm not trying to make a comparison between the two, so don't get upset, please):

If a drug addict or alcoholic claims they're not addicted to drugs/alcohol, shouldn't that mean that they know whether or not they are addicted?

And no, I'm not claiming homosexuality is a choice. I want to do more research on the subject before I make my final decision.

you don't understand homosexuality, you know so little about it, yet you tell us its a choice.

so before you can want us to stop telling you what we think christianity is you should stop telling us what you think you know homosexuality was!

That's his opinion on the matter; he's not telling you to believe that it is a choice.

you have apparently never, ever met a real lesbian.
(the lesbians from your porn collection do not count!

Apparently!

 

[Touring Mars]

Gay men are nasty.

Lesbians rule!

That's my deep thought about gayness.

You have apparently never, ever met a real lesbian.
(the lesbians from your porn collection do not count!

👍 👍

 

[Swift]

Vladmir: In reference to the versus that pertain to homosexuality.

Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.

Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

There you go. Now of course, since Jesus has died for our sins, you will not and shouldn't be put to death for it. But that doesn't negate the fact that God sees it as sin.

 

[Concept]

... nevermind... not even worth it.

What isn't nasty about a man fudge packing another man?

 

[MrktMkr1986]

What isn't nasty about a man fudge packing another man?

OK, now that was uncalled for...

 

[Concept]

OK, now that was uncalled for...

Not really. I'm expressing why I think gay men are nasty. So really, you're saying that men fudge packing other men is uncalled for. Thank you for supporting my original statement.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Not really. I'm expressing why I think gay men are nasty. So really, you're saying that men fudge packing other men is uncalled for. Thank you for supporting my original statement.

No, that was not in support of your original statement. That kind of comment doesn't belong here.

 

[Danoff]

What isn't nasty about a man fudge packing another man?

Totally, 100% beside the point. It doesn't matter if you think it's nasty, that doesn't mean you get to prevent people from doing it.

Edit: I meant to say that doesn't mean you get to preven people who do it from getting married.

 

[ledhed]

Some people think getting a good Lewinski is nasty. In fact its illegal still in some stupid states.
* check out the friggin banner adds at the bottom...now THATS NASTY....

* OXi-MED - HPV Cream
by Waldon Research - Eliminates HPV warts by killing the virus
Human Papilloma Virus
How dangerous is HPV? The medical facts may surprise you!
$300/Hr in Pennsylvania?
21 Side-by-side Comparisons of Fun Jobs Paying up to $300/Hour.
HPV and Cervical Cancer
Information on HPV and its role in development of cervical cancer

21 Side-by-side Comparisons of Fun Jobs Paying up to $300/Hour.

THIS BELONGS HERE ! 💡

 

[Concept]

No, that was not in support of your original statement. That kind of comment doesn't belong here.

It's a thread about Gay Marriage. I'm almost certain that gay men go about expressing their love for one another by packing a bit o' fudge into one another. That kind of statement does belong here. I'm expressing an opinion of what I think. If I were to say gay men are nasty in a GT4 thread, that'd be a palce it doesn't belong.


Anyhow, I disagree with homosexuality. It's not what God intended and it's certainly not the way the human body intended it to be. I do feel that people have the right to do what they want and live how they'd like, but I don't agree with it. I'm for people being their own people, but gay? It starts getting a little fuzzy as to what I'll accept when it comes to that.

 

[Concept]

Totally, 100% beside the point. It doesn't matter if you think it's nasty, that doesn't mean you get to prevent people from doing it.

I don't remember ever saying I had an intention to prevent people from doing it. Where did I make that statement?

 

[Swift]

Concept, the point is that there are gay people here and they deserve to NOT be called names for what they believe. End of story, so just stop it. You think it's uncool. So do I. But I don't think they are a lower life form or something.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Totally, 100% beside the point. It doesn't matter if you think it's nasty, that doesn't mean you get to prevent people from doing it.

Again, you're making the assumption that just because someone does not agree that they want to prevent people from doing it.

 

[Danoff]

Again, you're making the assumption that just because someone does not agree that they want to prevent people from doing it. This needs to stop -- NOW.

No I did not. You need to think about what you're reading before you respond to it.

I did not make the assumption that he wanted to prevent people from doing it. I said that his statement was beside the point - the real issue is whether we should prevent gay people from getting married, NOT whether we think gay people are nasty.

I made no assumptions about what he meant - I simply said that his statement was off topic.



I did, however make a mistake by mischaracterizing the actual intent of the thread. It was a slip, but it didn't put words in his mouth.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I did not make the assumption that he wanted to prevent people from doing it.

Apparently, he interpreted it exactly as I did.

I said that his statement was beside the point - the real issue is whether we should prevent gay people from getting married, NOT whether we think gay people are nasty.

OK.

I made no assumptions about what he meant - I simply said that his statement was off topic.

I said the same thing too...

I did, however make a mistake by mischaracterizing the actual intent of the thread. It was a slip, but it didn't put words in his mouth.

I see.

 

[Danoff]

I added a comment in my original post to reflect what I meant to say.

 

[emad]

Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.

Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

There you go. Now of course, since Jesus has died for our sins, you will not and shouldn't be put to death for it. But that doesn't negate the fact that God sees it as sin.

And you continue to assume that Christianity is the only religion that matters. What about followers of other religions or athiests? Should their rights be limited because of your beliefs?

 

[Concept]

Concept, the point is that there are gay people here and they deserve to NOT be called names for what they believe. End of story, so just stop it. You think it's uncool. So do I. But I don't think they are a lower life form or something.

Who is to really say the do or don't deserve it? i mean no disrespect in your authroity here but with that aside, who can really say the deserve or don't deserve to be called names. It's a matter of opinion when it comes down to it.

I dont think they're a lower life forum either. I do think that somewhere in their heads they are missing a key component in making them normal. Something in their head is so screwed up that they don't seem to understand that being a homosexual is one of the worst things you can do to yourself. Not only are you in for hell in your afterlife by choosing the homosexual route, but in the bedroom as well. Ouch.

 

[Carl.]

I'm so screwed up, I ate bacon this morning... at least that's what a Muslim friend told me.

 

[vladimir]

Just out of curiosity (and I'm not trying to make a comparison between the two, so don't get upset, please):

If a drug addict or alcoholic claims they're not addicted to drugs/alcohol, shouldn't that mean that they know whether or not they are addicted?

And no, I'm not claiming homosexuality is a choice. I want to do more research on the subject before I make my final decision.

i would say the drug addict knows very well that he is addicted, but he also knows that drug addiction is not accepted by society and very unhealthy and he does not want to admit that.
of course drug addiction can also come slowly (alcohol/tobacco/canabis), so the drug addict might not know instantly whether he is addicted or not. but there is one easy way to find out by stopping to consume it. if he can do that without problems, there is no addiction, if he can't, there is one.

homosexuals then, often try to have sex with the opposite sex first, because they do not want to be homosexual, but it does not work out and they are forced to accept it. so how can you speak of a choice, when they often do not even want to be gay and have to struggle to be even able to admit to themselves?

if it was a choice, a lot homosexuals would choose to become straight.

That's his opinion on the matter; he's not telling you to believe that it is a choice.

no, he tells me it was a fact, when in fact it is not even anything to discuss about because it is no choice.

the only choice there is, is whether you, as a homosexual, live your life as a homosexual or whether you deny your homosexuality.
but those people who are really homosexual (not bisexual) and who decide to lead a heterosexual life (because they are christians for example) are not happy. it happens occasionally that after 10 years of "happy" marriage a couple breaks up because one of the two is homosexual and can't stand it anymore to live a lie.

Vladmir: In reference to the versus that pertain to homosexuality.

Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.

Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

There you go. Now of course, since Jesus has died for our sins, you will not and shouldn't be put to death for it. But that doesn't negate the fact that God sees it as sin.

from my little knowledge about christianity, i would say that these are both from the old testament, right?

now when i discuss such issues with christians, and i present them a few lines from the old testament, they always tell me, that only the new testament is vald nowadays.

so either you take the old one 100% seriously, then all the rules should apply, or you only take the new one seriously and admit that the old one should be read carefully. but then everything in the old one is open for discussion because you definately can't just choose a few parts from the old one that you think should be valid and just ignore the rest, or can you?

what does the new one then say about homosexuality?

I dont think they're a lower life forum either. I do think that somewhere in their heads they are missing a key component in making them normal. Something in their head is so screwed up that they don't seem to understand that being a homosexual is one of the worst things you can do to yourself. Not only are you in for hell in your afterlife by choosing the homosexual route, but in the bedroom as well. Ouch.

maybe you should try it out before you judge it.

 

[Concept]

maybe you should try it out before you judge it.

I'd rather have sex with Rosanne than be a homosexual.

 

[Duke]

Can we take this thread back to topic please?

Your personal opinion on what you would rather do than be gay is totally irrelevant.