gay bashing part 2.......?

Question

an answere i recieved for my last question mentioned it's wrong and they shouldn't marry because they can't have children. the whole god made adam and eve not adam and steve thing. that is a big argument in the usa right now, weather or not gay people should have same human rights as others. so in saying they shouldn't marry because they can't have kids, should sterile humans not be allowed to marry either? seems like a lame argument to me.....

i can understand a person being jailed for crimes that hurt innocent people, they lose freedoms. but being gay is a religious crime that does not hurt other people physically, so why shouldn't they have the same human rights?

jibba jabba,
marriage, civil union - all documents that strive toward the same goal, the ring on your finger.

Answer 1

I am really scared by people who want their government to protect their faith principles. Anyone who needs a government to do that doesn't have a very strong faith. Our government's purpose is to allow easier interactions among society. We all know the benefits of legal marriage. But now people ask the government to protect the institution of marriage. This is clearly not the government's job. Protect your own religion. The government is here to facilitate interaction of committed partners. If marriage is a religious insitution to be protected, the government should never have been marrying anyone to start with. Our government needs to do away with all "marriages" and offer civil union contracts to all who want them.

Answer 2

Not just sterile people, but older women past menopause, and couples who don't intend to have children would also have to be excluded from marriage on these ridiculous grounds. In fact, in order to be "allowed" to get married at all, you'd have to either be pregnant or be prepared to enter into some kind of agreement with the state that you would have children within an allotted time after the wedding. It's ridiculous.

Answer 3

It IS a lame argument. The right to marry has NEVER been dependent on the ability to procreate. Why set the standards higher for same sex couples? No, seriously, why??

And homosexuality is in no way a crime. Sodomy was decriminalized a while back in Lawrence v Texas. Gay people hurt no one, create no victims, bring down no civilizations, simply by being gay. They raise happy, healthy children and lead fruitful, productive lives. They form long-term pair-bonds like heterosexuals. The difference is that, for some reason, the American people cannot recognize these things and accordingly afford them the same right to marriage that "conventional" couples enjoy.

Calling a marriage A MARRIAGE (instead of giving the relationship the label of "civil union" which is a nice seat in the BACK of the governmental recognition bus) neither damages nor insults anyone elses marriage. If two homosexuals somewhere getting married devalues your marriage (not "your" marriage, but "your" in the general sense) then you have bigger problems to deal with. I don't consider the strength and meaning of my marriage to be contingent upon who ELSE gets married and it baffles me to think that anyone else would.

Oh, and "j8son"... Leglizing same sex marriage will create a society of "gays" in the EXACT same way that allowing infertile couples to marry will create a society of "non-procreaters". The "slippery slope" argument is very much a logical fallacy, you know.

Not one marriage law in existence REQUIRES that both parties be ready, willing and able to procreate in order to "qualify" for marriage. Why set same sex couples to some nonexistent higher standard just because you want the institution to reflect an ideal that it has NEVER vowed to uphold?

Answer 4

I personally think that anyone should be allowed to spend their life with whomever they choose, if both (all) parties are in agreement and of legal age. I dont think that gays should have more privilages than other domestic partners do. I think that anyone who spends a given amount of years with another person, even if its not a romantic relationship, should be permitted to include them on their taxes, health and life insurance and not permitted to leave the relationship leaving the other person with nothing. This could be any kind of relationship, good friends from college that never found anyone to settle down with, a couple of windows (widowers) who dont want to remarry and so on.

On the other hand, I know one of the things that Christians are bothered with in considering gay marriage is that many (not all) gays are permiscuous and really dont want to share their life with only one partner. But, this is the same in straight marriages too... so maybe to be fair, the state should be able to void any marriage that monogomy isnt practiced and prohibbit multiple marriages by both straights and gays?

Just a thought.

Answer 5

I question my daughter and her partner about the reason they want to get married.
In her instance, she said that they want to have the insurance benefits,and the tax breaks afforded to married couples.

I told her that I thought that was legislation. That any person should have the right to list someone as there partner for those things.So they are fighting for the wrong things in politics.

I don't understand why she or any person that isn't a Christian wants to marry before God? That was my question to her.

Answer 6

Well you are right that is argument is very flawed.

Unfortuantely, many Christians are not very logical. Of course all gays and lesbians should have basic human rights.

I personally believe that marriage was designed for a man and a woman. I believe if you examine our bodies biologically/physically you will also come to the conclusion that man and woman are supposed to be together.

However, I am not sure if the government should put such a restriction on marriage. As a Christian I realize that just because the STate will recognize a marriage does not mean that God will consider it a Holy Union.

I am very hesitant as a Christian to support "Marriage Admendents" and such because I feel like that Christians have not shown love to the gay and lesbian community.

I mean shouldn't we demonstrate love towards them before we legislate against them.

Answer 7

particular, it replaced into honest, in my view. Violence isn't any thank you to remedy something, except it is self-protection, or maybe with the indisputable fact that the gay new child could have verbally taunted the chum's son, the chum's son did initiate the actual attack, after expressing a opt to "beat the crap out of" him earlier. yet you do ought to undergo in recommendations that 8th Grade is an fantastically no longer hassle-free time for infants. they are purely entering into their young infants, and such hormonal imbalances could lead on on them to be particularly an excellent sort of a handful (and it is coming from a former summer season camp/VBS counselor for a gaggle of rowdy 8th graders), and so it could have been a sprint harsh.

Answer 8

Youre on a gay kick today, huh?? Thinking about going to bat for the other team?? Just kidding :)

Lame argument indeed. What more would you expect?

Answer 9

You are wrong about being gay not hurting anyone

Gay men are the by far largest passer of Aids in this country right now. That harms not only the participants, but families, YOU AND ME for having to help pay for medical care for many of them.
There are other injuries and conditions associated almost exclusively with gay sex practices

Many people have left the gay lifestyle with emotional scars that will last them for a lifetime saying that they regret ever beginning it.

Whether you will admit it or not, there are still social stigmas asscociated with being gay . Yes , you may call me a homophob if you like, That does not offend me.
I still believe in the Bible as God's Word. He says it's wrong so I stick by His side

If you want to take it up with Him, you WILL get a chance someday to argue your case......Good luck with that.......

Answer 10

If you don't want to beleive that God , not god ,made our first parents--fine, but that is the way it is--why are you so upset? If you don't want to believe the Bible's morality, what will you do, find every Bible in the world and change Eve-to-Steve?

The fact is God, hates immorality, of any kind,NOT those that practice it, as some have tried to link to God.
The fact that he would have spared the whole city of Sodom if only 10 including his family of 4 were found in the city , notice please the dialogue with Abraham:

(Genesis 18:20-32) “32 Finally he said: “May Jehovah, please, not grow hot with anger, but let me speak just this once: Suppose ten are found there.” In turn he said: “I shall not bring it to ruin on account of the ten.. . .”

Ask yourself, why would he make that kind of decision and indeed he would carry it out? When the angels looked for those 10, what were they met with? Might the Sodomites(homo-sexuals, lesbians, those practicing bestiality, rapists, pedophiles--and who knows what other type sick sex was practiced) known that these two visitors were angels?--possibly!
For they knew that perverted angels who decided to leave their lofty positions in heaven, had what they considered as "great sex"--with many beautiful women they married on earth.
So just surmise that, could it be that the sodomites wanted unbridled sex with 2 angels, might it have been the best sex that they could imagine?
-Could the lure of this great high with 2 spirit creatures been beyond their control?---no not really, because they even rejected Lot's stupid offering of his 2 daughters, instead of the angels(do be done with in any way they choose) no reasoning allowed by them----they valued the sex they could have for what a few hours of pleasure release of their sexual energies -rather than life and making a change over, they choose-to be burnt alive in that sick city--and staying dead forever.

So where is the line drawn? Should all states go along with Massachusetts ?
-Should God , say, well, I am tired of this contraversy--I think I'll become like Zeus and the rest of the pagan god's and have sex with my angels, when I get tired of this, I'll go down to the earth and start on humans, animals, fish, birds--IT SHOULD BE FUN, and after all I am God?

-The historically accurate Biblical record shows that He would reject every notion of that & has? Do you think you and those who favor this brand new idea of no morality were the first to do so, hardly, I am sure you know better. Note:

(Psalm 50:16-22) “16 But to the wicked one God will have to say: “What right do you have to ENUMERATE(meaning to determine,my cap) my regulations, And that you may bear my covenant in your mouth? 17 Why, you—you have hated discipline, And you keep throwing my words behind you. 18 Whenever you saw a thief, you were even pleased with him; And your sharing was with adulterers. 19 Your mouth you have let loose to what is bad, And your tongue you keep attached to deception. 20 You sit [and] speak against your own brother, Against the son of your mother you give away a fault. 21 These things you have done, and I kept silent. You imagined that I would positively become like you. I am going to reprove you, and I will set things in order before your eyes. 22 Understand this, please, YOU forgetters of God, That I may not tear [YOU] to pieces without there being any deliverer.”

A Sodom & Gomorrah reckoning is ahead of us all, whether we be the type of persons in the following categories at heart or otherwise that will not exempt us from God's morality:

(1 Corinthians 6:9-10) “9 What! Do YOU not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men, 10 nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit God’s kingdom.”
-This does't mean only for thoses few who would rule with Christ in heaven to be prevented from going there, but for most of mankind that will be prevented for living at all on the earth, ever--No more potential for enjoying the unadulterated things on this beautiful earth, with true family and friends.

If God compromised his high calber morality for
adulterers, homosexuals, lesbians, what comes next? Should rapists, pedaphiles, people who dig up the dead to have sex with them be permitted to do their pleasure thing etc. What line should be drawn for any morality to exist.

You know if higher laws of nature didn't exist , that govern pure water, air, marvelous gravity, growth of every wonderous kind etc. --fine then you might have a precedent--BUT they do exist and govern--How about The Governor behind them, will your putting Him on a convient self--stop his governing?