10 Reasons to not allow gay marriage

[Apdl]

very nice

[USMCCaptain]

I cant touch this... my wife and I argue about this one all the time, I hate it, she says go for it.... I just cant bring myself to go anywhere near this topic without the rant from hell...

~semper fi~
USMC Captain

[KP Ling]

Originally Posted by tec

You read a strange bible, and you twist it in the most un-natural ways to suite your wants.

I did not know the King James Version is considered strange.

Originally Posted by tec

Men kept for un-natural purposes is not looked upon favorably in the bible. Soddon and Gomorrah (sp's) were destroyed because of the un clean conditions, the un natural conditions the people were promoting in those cities. This is what the bible says, what is so hard to understand with that, why work so hard to twist something so simple and clear into something immoral. Ahhh, because it makes you feel less guilty for doing something considered by many to be dirty and disgusting, yes even immoral.

Actually, the tale of Sodom and Gomorrah was less about homosexuality and more about the dishonor of mistreating guests. Remember that God smote them, partly for homosexuality, but mostly they did not know how to treat his angels as guests. Also, remember that Lot offered up members of his own family to be raped instead of the angels. Does that sound very moral to say, "Don't rape this person...rape this one instead." It would be moral to say, "Don't rape." Of course it might not be seen as rape since wives and daughters are considered the property of the husband/father according to Biblical law so his consent is all that is needed.

Originally Posted by tec

Your bible is a little skewed, or at least your interpertation of your bible. You have stated these views before if memory serves, sad, so sad to have such a view that you think it ok for this to occur.

It is the King James version not my version. Also, it is hard to skew an interpretation when it literally says these things:
Disobedient children put to death-Leviticus 20:9
Women who turn out to not be virgins on their wedding night are to be killed-Deuteronomy 22:20-1
Unmarried, unengaged women must marry their rapists-Deuteronomy 22:28-29

Originally Posted by tec

Lets bust it down to the most basic way of looking at it. To give you as little chance as possible to have too much information that you will be confused with and thus twist around in such a manner as to make you feel better about your lifestyle choices. Lets go back to the beginning, The creation of the first human on Earth and it's companion, Adam and Eve.

Prove it happened this way. The Qur'an says that Adam and Eve were equal and meant to complement each other and the Hindu version is rather more involved. Which old book I am I to believe over the others?

Originally Posted by tec

If guy on guy or gal on gal sex were ok, then why didn't God created Adam and "George", or Eve and "Megan". He didn't, for a reason. See it's really quite simple, God made man, Adam, then Woman, Eve, to procreate and fill the earth. Says that in the bible. Not a lot of words there when it says it either for you to twist to suite your needs. oh snap

Again, were you there to see the beginning? Why do you substitute your own words and logic for that of the Bible? I am glad that you do not feel children should be killed for disobedience or that rapists should marry their victims. However this is not following all of God's commandments. God blessed Lot, after the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, in his incestual episodes with his daughter. Solomon had thousand of wives and sex slaves and King David regularly banged other men's wives; are these behaviors we should emulate along with marrying only men to women? Oh, Snap!

Originally Posted by tec

You show me, with hard solid proof, that two guys having sex will create a offspring, or you show me, with hard proof, that two women having sex together, will created a child. When you or anybody else can do that, with hard proof, then I will listen to what you have to say. And, mind you, a person that had a sex change doesn't count for anything other then a sicko.

Never have I said that the point of marriage is to create children. If that were so then children could not be born out of wedlock. It is nothing more than a social convention placed upon a biological function. If our ancestors decided one day that marriage was only valid when it met their criteria (including a lot of polygamy and sex with slaves; I do not have the quotations but start reading around the Bile and you will see), who's to say that we can not change that criteria? Why not pass a law outlawing divorce and forcing people who have sex before marriage/pregnant out of wedlock to get married if you truly want to protect marriage? Marriage is, at its core, nothing more than a legal obligation of finances and responsibilities between parties that is born out of love (hopefully), necessity, or arrangment. You obviously have listened to what I have to say since you wrote such a long, somewhat thought-out post. Of course you will then come back with some witty retort like, "No matter what proof I give you, you still won't believe!" However, I'm saying the same thing about you right now. There is one difference, I use the word proof in my accusation and mean it; you use the word proof as a synonym for "confirmation of what I already believe regardless of reality."

Originally Posted by tec

Until you stop re-interpreting the bible and or the basic function of the human body to suite your wants, you will have a skewered outlook on the basic human morals of mankind.

Again, had I been quoting parables then you might have a leg to stand on but I was quoting direct commandments. Would you say that anyone of the Ten Commandments is unclear or that they are parables? Note that Jews call the ten commandments the "Ten Sayings" and that they believe there are over 600 commandments.

Originally Posted by tec

While I don't see eye to eye with the views of Muslims or Nikon777, I do have to agree with him on one thing he stated, "burn baby burn" in Gehenna, where neither body nor soul can be saved.

I see you are using a new logical tactic..."The enemy of my enemy is my friend so therefore you are wrong." More people in the world are non-Christian than Christian, even though it is the largest single religion, so by your standards the more people believe in something the more correct it is and the less people, the less valid the idea is. So using your logic in this thread then Christianity is wrong. Also, the "burn baby burn" was meant for the flames that would ensue from my post. Though I guess since this is not a parable and we have two interpretations then it would be easy to see how God plainly saying kill your kids when they disobey you, could be a point of disagreement between us.

Originally Posted by tec

Does it make you feel better to try to convince other people that a immoral lifestyle is ok? You can talk yourself blue in the face, you will never change either mine, or I do believe Nikons viewpoint on this. We both realize there is a God (we just don't agree on who God is, but do agree on what his basic laws are) and God isn't gonna be smiling when you go see him, no he's gonna have a big frown, after he has a look of disgust.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything's morality. I just do not want others to legislate it for me. Remember that something being immoral is not the same as offending your sensibilities. So long as someone's acitvity involves consenting, capable adults; and does not violate others rights, there should be no law against it. Preach to me all you want and I will either listen or tell you, "Thanks but no thanks," walk away, or agree with you but you people are talking about getting the government involved which means compulsion and force or the threat of its use. How moral is your stance when you have to compel action rather then persuade and convince? Not very in all honesty. When you create a precedent that someone's behavior can be regulated simply because you find it offensive then this precedent will someday ensnare you. It also means that we have no natural born/God-given rights; our freedoms are subject to the social whims of whatever times we live in. Aside from being an infallible Biblical scholar, do you also have ESP? Since you can read God's mind and know what he thinks about me; and even more impressive, predict the future episode when we will meet, you must have ESP!

p.s. Use your powers to give me the next winning numbers for the Powerball...please!

[jeff221]

Here's my take on it:


Mine your own business...


If Joe & Bob want to get married, it doesn't effect you, so mind your own damn business. If YOU don't want to accept that they are married, fine.

You wouldn't want them telling you what you should and shouldn't do in your bedroom, stay out of theres. Let them get marrried, IT DOESN"T EFFECT YOU IF THEY DO!

[tec]

Originally Posted by KP Ling

I did not know the King James Version is considered strange.

Yet again, you, if you had any accurate knowledge of the bible, would in a second look ashamed for your twisting of the words in it.

[VAXDGUY]

Originally Posted by NewXD40fun

How about; it's wrong.

A man is not a woman.

Oh, so it's okay for two women to marry then?

[einheit 13]

Originally Posted by VAXDGUY

Oh, so it's okay for two women to marry then?

I don't agree with it at all, but, if two peoples of the same sex have a monogamous relationship with each other who wre you to say its wrong?? They should also be entitled to the same perks as a husband and wife. The minute the state got involved with marrage, it lost any kind of religious meaning. Besides that if you religious bible punchers are worth your salt, you would be against interacial marrage, divorce, marrage between 2 different religions, saying that women are equal to men and are not property of the man.

The greatest homophobes that have ever been are religious, and have this holier than thou attitude. If this offends you, good-you need to be offended.
Accept the fact that the world is not what is in the bible and its writtings are nothing more that a great literal achievement, and quit being so anal retentive......

[Son of Norway]

Originally Posted by jeff221

Here's my take on it:


Mine your own business...

Yep.

I see people using religion as a crutch to back up their personal feelings about this issue and it's just a shame. These folks are too focused on sex. And I bet every one of them has done some pretty freaky things with their wives that could be interpreted as not pleasing to (insert the god of your choice here).

Back away from the sex and focus on love. You don't have to understand it or accept it, but I have a hunch that God is OK with love. I'm sure that Mary Cheney gives Dick Cheney cause to pause about the party line on this issue.

[VAXDGUY]

Originally Posted by einheit 13

I don't agree with it at all, but, if two peoples of the same sex have a monogamous relationship with each other who wre you to say its wrong??

I have to take issue with the you in your quote as you have no idea what I think on the subject.
I was merely exposing a flaw in Tom's channeling of Fox News.

[eskimo]

I think it was just God's way of protecting the human race. If it came out wrong and and lived, let's keep it from reproducing, make it queer, it won't reproduce that way. Just short of a window licker on the short bus with thier CCM hockey helmets.
Let them get married. They have more rights than us heterosexuals anyways.
Verizon land line, the queer couples can share med. coverage and hets. can't. You have to be married to use the med. care unless you're queer or married.
Let them do what they want, it's a free country, but they shouldn't have more rights. That's been a sore spot with me for years.
So I'm all for it. Make them get married to use the system like it should be used.