Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Gay Marriage


TrueBeliever

Recommended Posts

The Bible tells us that in the end days the world will become corrupt. For that to happen the corrupt must no longer see themselves as corrupt or must willingly join the dark side.

All those that join the dark side such as criminals, sociopaths and toxic individuals I avoid. My Bible defines the homosexual as being in that group too so I avoid them as well.

I'm not saying I would beat one up, be abusive or discriminate against a homosexual. More that I would avoid them and try to have as little to do with them as possible. Its their choice if they want to live as they did in Sodom and it is Gods if he decides to punish them not mine. I just try to look after myself.

I guess that puts me in good company, being I am a practicing witch and follower of the "old ways." Yeah!! I'm toxic!!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For people like him, they're given up rational thought, in favor of what the bible says. In essense the bible really does govern them as they're given up their will.

I'm not quite sure how you function. honestly, the more you talk, the more ignorant and stupid you sound.

LOL, Stick around, this is just the tip of that particular iceberg!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would God make them homosexual though? You make no sense!

I think he is talking from personal experience Taylor.

When he has homosexual urges he rails against them. Denying them to the point of phobia.

It's the only logical reason for his hiding in the closet while the Pride march goes past his home.

Unless he is so deluded that he thinks that if he stepped outside they would all 'fall upon him' like a starving flock of Flamingos happening across the last puddle in the Serengeti and just 'suck him all up'?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the more homophobic the person is, the more homosexual urges they have. I believe even a study has proven this.

EDIT: Misspelled "proven".

LOL, certainly the case here I'd say.

I can't see any reason to be worried by or afraid of gay people.

If I had some 'gay urges' I think I'd just be suprised. LOL!!

If a pride march can send him into hiding god only knows what would happen if he found out about how 'homosexuals' have 'infiltrated' all other portions of society ;)

He'd probobly make gay people wear a badge to identify themselves so he can 'choose' to interact with them or not.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it's not. This is about making something open to another group of people YOUR marriage will remian intact, the same as ever unless YOU terminate it.

All what you're trying to do is deny marriage to people for purely selfish reasons, without a thought to those people because you are saying that person marrying will effect mine. Tell me, does any marriage today effect yours? The answer to that is no. Anyone elses marriage does not effect yours, just as yours does not effect anyone elses. Yet you have the gall to try and say that someone else marrying now will effect yours?

As I said before, if you really think it'll effect your marriage, you need to take a long, serious look at yourself. Expanding marriage rights to other groups has not effected people already married in the past so to act like it now just seems like scaremongering.

I see marriage in a similar way. In fact I agree up until the man and woman part.

So you clearly have no problem with the contract being changed to definitely exclude a group of people, but do have a problem with it including people?

Again I agree with that, which is why I see it as important that same sex couples get the chance to hae their relationships validated the same way.

Why not? Pretty much everything you seem to 'define' marriage as can and does apply to same sex relationships. you are, perhaps unintentionally, downgrding and degrading same sex relationships because you think they should have the 'lesser' status than straight couples.

I say it doesn't because it it is not relevent. It is a completely seperate issue. As for having 'no inestment' you're wrong. If polygamy does become an issue, I'll fight for it just s strongly as I do for same sex marriage.

Tradition is an odd thing and, in this case, is used as an excuse not to move forward. In the past the protection of trdional marriage was used as excuses to deny interfaith marriage and interracial marriages. Today we see that denial as morally unacceptable. In a generation, we will say the same about this. Just because something is traditional doens't automatically mean it's excusable to deny the rights of others.

No. Changing the mariage act changes the "nature" of my marriage by law, just as changing the terms of a financial contract changes the nature of prexisting contracts. A minor point perhaps but then I am pedantic. I want what i paid for, including exclusivity. I would like to see the right to marriage tightened up and more strongly enforced with less ability to divorce or separate so easily. Actually modern forms of marriage, including easy separation and divorce, and the abilty to have children outside a marriage DO materially affect me and have for decades. Both professionally and personally i am coping with and helping the children of such marriages who are hurt and broken and sometimes left homeless by inadequate protections under law.

It is not however a selfish desire but a belief that a conservative legisated form of marriage is better for society, better for individuals, and most importantly, offers much greater protection for children. It hurts me to see children and women suffer so.

Legally same sex couple shouldn't have less protection or status, they just "cant" be "Married" That's like saying a dog can be a cat simply by redefining the names of each. "Married" is a term constructed to apply to the joining of a man and a woman.

Another term needs to be used for same sex legal unions. A same sex union is a different "beast" or thing to a heterosexual union, like a cat is different to a dog. Gay people are not heterosexual people. We are defined by our genes. A man cant have children. Marriage is really only required for the recognition, legitimacy, rights and protection of children (and in some cases of women where they require legal protections) And most definitions of marriage until very recently included this recognition in their definition.

Equality is NOT sameness. It is a recognition of difference, otherwise we would never have to work towards or consider equality.

You have no physical or emotional investment in a polygamus relationship. If you did , as you say myou would push for it as hard as for gay rights. But, like most of us you differntiate between your own priorities and others. Really why are gay rights any more important than the rights of polygamists or (to deliberately push the envelope a little )those who wish to reduce the age of consent or allow marrige between family members. And if gay marriages are viable and the same as straight marriages why should polygamous or other forms of marriage not be given equal rights right now? Are you in favour of such legal reforms?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not hidden in the closet but I must congratulate you as that Narnia comment even made me laugh lol

These forums have made me homo paranoid as I never knew there were so many of them about lol

Yes, "they" are ubiquitous...and "they" are all here to convert you. Now, sign off the computer, and go buy yourself some pink shirts. There's a nice lad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Bible tells us that in the end days the world will become corrupt. For that to happen the corrupt must no longer see themselves as corrupt or must willingly join the dark side.

All those that join the dark side such as criminals, sociopaths and toxic individuals I avoid. My Bible defines the homosexual as being in that group too so I avoid them as well.

I'm not saying I would beat one up, be abusive or discriminate against a homosexual. More that I would avoid them and try to have as little to do with them as possible. Its their choice if they want to live as they did in Sodom and it is Gods if he decides to punish them not mine. I just try to look after myself.

Watch my video. It's no choice. You're either deluded or a bigot.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. Changing the mariage act changes the "nature" of my marriage by law, just as changing the terms of a financial contract changes the nature of prexisting contracts. A minor point perhaps but then I am pedantic. I want what i paid for, including exclusivity. I would like to see the right to marriage tightened up and more strongly enforced with less ability to divorce or separate so easily. Actually modern forms of marriage, including easy separation and divorce, and the abilty to have children outside a marriage DO materially affect me and have for decades. Both professionally and personally i am coping with and helping the children of such marriages who are hurt and broken and sometimes left homeless by inadequate protections under law.

It is not however a selfish desire but a belief that a conservative legisated form of marriage is better for society, better for individuals, and most importantly, offers much greater protection for children. It hurts me to see children and women suffer so.

Legally same sex couple shouldn't have less protection or status, they just "cant" be "Married" That's like saying a dog can be a cat simply by redefining the names of each. "Married" is a term constructed to apply to the joining of a man and a woman.

Another term needs to be used for same sex legal unions. A same sex union is a different "beast" or thing to a heterosexual union, like a cat is different to a dog. Gay people are not heterosexual people. We are defined by our genes. A man cant have children. Marriage is really only required for the recognition, legitimacy, rights and protection of children (and in some cases of women where they require legal protections) And most definitions of marriage until very recently included this recognition in their definition.

Equality is NOT sameness. It is a recognition of difference, otherwise we would never have to work towards or consider equality.

You have no physical or emotional investment in a polygamus relationship. If you did , as you say myou would push for it as hard as for gay rights. But, like most of us you differntiate between your own priorities and others. Really why are gay rights any more important than the rights of polygamists or (to deliberately push the envelope a little )those who wish to reduce the age of consent or allow marrige between family members. And if gay marriages are viable and the same as straight marriages why should polygamous or other forms of marriage not be given equal rights right now? Are you in favour of such legal reforms?

Okay, so you want marriage laws tightened up because "allowing" homosexual couples to marry somehow diminishes your rights as a married person. I get that...except...then I read your signature line, which is a passage from "Desiderata": "You care a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here." This quote, and the entire Desiderata, implies that all humans are equally important. That, in turn, implies that all humans should have the same basic rights and freedoms.

There is, therefore, hypocrisy rampant in your post. I believe an attitude adjustment might be in order.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn, I lost my first attempt at answering this.

No. Changing the mariage act changes the "nature" of my marriage by law, just as changing the terms of a financial contract changes the nature of prexisting contracts. A minor point perhaps but then I am pedantic. I want what i paid for, including exclusivity. I would like to see the right to marriage tightened up and more strongly enforced with less ability to divorce or separate so easily. Actually modern forms of marriage, including easy separation and divorce, and the abilty to have children outside a marriage DO materially affect me and have for decades. Both professionally and personally i am coping with and helping the children of such marriages who are hurt and broken and sometimes left homeless by inadequate protections under law.

It is not however a selfish desire but a belief that a conservative legisated form of marriage is better for society, better for individuals, and most importantly, offers much greater protection for children. It hurts me to see children and women suffer so.

It is a minor fact and yes, you are being pedantic. And, to me, you seem rather petty, because you want your exclusivity. That just comes across as rather childish and small of you.

If you married when interacial marriage was illegal would you be using the same arguement against that as well?

As for your financial contracts example, at one time women couldn't own property or handle finnances alone. The law was changed to enable that was possible. Again, would you have been protesting that out of exclusivity?

While it is good that you help those children, it's your choice to help them. You don't have to, you're not required to do so outside the confines of your job. As such, it's your choice to be effected by those marriages in such a way and you can always just walk away. Don't get me wrong though, it's good that you help those children.

Do you realise that your position makes women and children (and men) suffer? Same sex families suffer because they aren't afforded the guaranteed protections that hetrosexual ones get and that, to me, is a problem. if you truly cared about children as much as you seem to claim, you'd want those children to be protected too. Alas, you seem only to want hetrosexual families protected.

Legally same sex couple shouldn't have less protection or status, they just "cant" be "Married" That's like saying a dog can be a cat simply by redefining the names of each. "Married" is a term constructed to apply to the joining of a man and a woman.

Legally they shouldn't which is why they want marriage. That way they are guaranteed identical legal protections. It's just that simple. Anything else doesn't guarantee the same protections because civil unions/civil partnerships etc are all basically watered down versions of marriage.

Another term needs to be used for same sex legal unions. A same sex union is a different "beast" or thing to a heterosexual union, like a cat is different to a dog. Gay people are not heterosexual people. We are defined by our genes. A man cant have children. Marriage is really only required for the recognition, legitimacy, rights and protection of children (and in some cases of women where they require legal protections) And most definitions of marriage until very recently included this recognition in their definition.

Why? Seperate but equal didn't work in the past, so why should it work now?

Now you're back to the old fall back of children, which can be taken apart by two arguements.

Arguement 1: Infertile and elderly couples cannot biologically have children. However, despite this, they are entitled to marriage. If marriage was so child-focussed, they'd be denied it on the same grounds.

Arguement 2: Same sex couples can have children (by adoption or surrogacy). Why are the rights, recognition and protection of those children unimportant?

Equality is NOT sameness. It is a recognition of difference, otherwise we would never have to work towards or consider equality.

Equaoity is about everyone having the same rights and protections. Everyone, regardless of age, gender, sexual orientation, skin colour, age, handedness etc should be given the same basic protections and statuses. People have fought for equal rights in the past, to guarantee that basic fairness, to work towards a world where true equal rights do exist.

You have no physical or emotional investment in a polygamus relationship. If you did , as you say myou would push for it as hard as for gay rights. But, like most of us you differntiate between your own priorities and others. Really why are gay rights any more important than the rights of polygamists or (to deliberately push the envelope a little )those who wish to reduce the age of consent or allow marrige between family members. And if gay marriages are viable and the same as straight marriages why should polygamous or other forms of marriage not be given equal rights right now? Are you in favour of such legal reforms?

What makes you so sure? I would certainly push as hard for it. However, as when such arguements are bought up, it's an attempt to derail the arguement. As such, I'll answer your parts in general terms and if you wish me to elaborate, start a thread or PM me.

I'd not reduce the age of consent, why? An important part of marriage is that it's between two consenting adults. Reducing the age would open it up to people who are too immature who can't handle it (and it's already bad enough with immature adults). Consentual marriage between family members isn't a problem to me. Every so often you hear about people that have fallen in love and married, then find out they're long lost siblings and I always find it sad how it breaks them.

So yes, I am in favor of legal reforms. Msotly because while you focus on the man/woman part of the contract, I focus on the rest. You know, with the couple being consenting adults who love each other. I always find it sad how those that fight for traditional marriage have lost focus on that side of marriage aka: the parts that matter.

But, like most of us you differntiate between your own priorities and others

It's funny that you say that. While I'd push for those things (with or without personal investmant), you clearly differentiate between your priorities and others. you don't have to be personally invested in something to fight for it. I'd fight for women's rights, even though I'm not a woman. I'd fight against racial prejudice, even though I'm white. I fight for transgender rights, even though I'm not myself. What would you fight for? Ah yes, keeping marriage exclusive because of your investment.

Edited by shadowhive
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. Changing the mariage act changes the "nature" of my marriage by law, just as changing the terms of a financial contract changes the nature of prexisting contracts. A minor point perhaps but then I am pedantic. I want what i paid for, including exclusivity. I would like to see the right to marriage tightened up and more strongly enforced with less ability to divorce or separate so easily. Actually modern forms of marriage, including easy separation and divorce, and the abilty to have children outside a marriage DO materially affect me and have for decades. Both professionally and personally i am coping with and helping the children of such marriages who are hurt and broken and sometimes left homeless by inadequate protections under law.

It is not however a selfish desire but a belief that a conservative legisated form of marriage is better for society, better for individuals, and most importantly, offers much greater protection for children. It hurts me to see children and women suffer so.

*Snip*

Marriage really has no meaning to me. It is either/or a contract with the government or with god. Since I'm a non-believer I can throw the god part out as it is meaningless, and the government shouldn't be involved with peoples love lives in any way shape or form. If two people of opposite or of the same sex want to enter a relationship and make a private contract (no government involved), then that should be their choice. If marriage is so special and seen as this huge commitment, then why do more than 50% of first marriages end in divorce? 2nd and 3rd marriages have even higher divorce rates.

I would never try to take away peoples right to get married (gay or straight), as that is their choice to do so. But it should be their choice, not the governments and certainly not left up to any religious body. And really, does the couple down the street have a right to tell you that you can't become married? People need to butt out of other peoples lives!

You say you want to tighten the rules on marriage and make it harder to get divorced. Do you realize that would reduce the amount of marriages overall? Why get married if the government is going to try to force you to stay in an unwanted marriage that has run it's course. It would certainly stop me from getting married.......

I think you are confused about marriage, what it means, and how your views affects everyone, not just yourself and your greedy one-sided views on marriage.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watch my video. It's no choice. You're either deluded or a bigot.

Sorry but I have to disagree.

I think he can manage to be both deluded and a bigot.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry but I have to disagree.

I think he can manage to be both deluded and a bigot.

May I toss in petty, mean-spirited, and hypocritical?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People got married long before Christianity and well continue long after it is gone the way of the old pagan religions. It has been in most cultures a financial contract. Love as reason for marriage is really a new concept. You used to have to marry who your family told you to marry. (I don't think could've ever come up with enough pigs and horses for my wife. If it would have been up to them it wouldn't have happened. ) Culture changes, which is what makes to such a wonderful adaptive tool in the right hands. In the fifties there was a change in our culture to move toward a more loving state of being. Civil rights started to become a part of of that change and there is no going back. Bye all got a friend in need.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People got married long before Christianity and well continue long after it is gone the way of the old pagan religions. It has been in most cultures a financial contract. Love as reason for marriage is really a new concept. You used to have to marry who your family told you to marry. (I don't think could've ever come up with enough pigs and horses for my wife. If it would have been up to them it wouldn't have happened. ) Culture changes, which is what makes to such a wonderful adaptive tool in the right hands. In the fifties there was a change in our culture to move toward a more loving state of being. Civil rights started to become a part of of that change and there is no going back. Bye all got a friend in need.

What civil rights? We already had civil rights

You mean gay and ethnic minority rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think could've ever come up with enough pigs and horses for my wife.

And who says romance is dead? Brings a tear to my eye!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What civil rights? We already had civil rights

You mean gay and ethnic minority rights.

You're a white, hetrosexual, christian male. As such your rights have never been challenged and it certainly shows by how arogant you are.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And who says romance is dead? Brings a tear to my eye!

It must frighten some to know that on this planet there are 5 billion people that do believe in God.

Yet some people are naive to think that must mean theres 5 billion uneducated bigots. Most people who think that way are located in the West as they have turned atheist.

I wonder how many of those 5 billion are highly educated, believe in God and oppose homosexuality?

Edited by Mr Right Wing
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It must frighten some to know that on this planet there are 5 billion people that do believe in God.

Yet some people are naive to think that must mean theres 5 billion uneducated bigots.

Belief in god doesn't always equal uneducated bigot though, although belief in god seems to make people more likely to retain their uneducated and bigotted ways.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What civil rights? We already had civil rights

You mean gay and ethnic minority rights.

Dear God in heaven...did you read what you just wrote? Since when do civil rights apply only to white heterosexuals? The very term "civil rights" tacitly implies basic rights and freedoms available to all people, regardless of gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion...or any other excuse you would apparently use to deny a person said rights.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It must frighten some to know that on this planet there are 5 billion people that do believe in God.

Yet some people are naive to think that must mean theres 5 billion uneducated bigots. Most people who think that way are located in the West as they have turned atheist.

I wonder how many of those 5 billion are highly educated, believe in God and oppose homosexuality?

Only the ones who think God's love is limited to white heterosexuals...and the more you write, the more I think the "god" you worship may very well have a pointed tail and horns. It is said that the devil's greatest trick is convincing people that he doesn't exist, but I disagree. I think the devil's greatest trick is getting people like you to worship him by making you believe that bigotry, fear, and hatred are the things that "God" would want.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, I'm one of the five billion. I believe in God. I'm white. I'm female. I'm straight. I'm very well-educated. And I also believe that the God I worship loves all humans equally. The God I love doesn't withhold His love from anyone.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only the ones who think God's love is limited to white heterosexuals...and the more you write, the more I think the "god" you worship may very well have a pointed tail and horns. It is said that the devil's greatest trick is convincing people that he doesn't exist, but I disagree. I think the devil's greatest trick is getting people like you to worship him by making you believe that bigotry, fear, and hatred are the things that "God" would want.

Gods love is not limited to white people but yes its limited to hetrosexuals and also those who commit no other sins.

Some sin can be forgiven if the person is really sorry. Thats Gods choice though so you'll have to take it up with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God did not create homosexuals he created man with free will.

He didnt create stupidity either, but free will and you make good use of that free will lol :P

I gotta admit...You are giving me such a laugh over here...even funnier when people take you so seriously lol

Edited by Beckys_Mom
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gods love is not limited to white people but yes its limited to hetrosexuals and also those who commit no other sins.

Some sin can be forgiven if the person is really sorry. Thats Gods choice though so you'll have to take it up with him.

Your knowledge of religion is as extensive *snort* as the entire body of the knowledge *snort* you exhibit. God loves all of his children, regardless of whether or not they are sinners. Have you ever actually read the Bible, or did you just glance at the cover of one in a bookshop once?

And another thing: If we accept your comments, God doesn't love you. In fact, by your lights, God doesn't love anybody--because all humans commit sins. If you claim that you do not commit sins, then you are, by default, guilty of the sin of arrogance. I seem to recall God taking very particular action against one of His most beloved angel for committing the sin of arrogance. Poor Lucifer. Poor you.

Edited by lizzieboo
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.