[distantmantra]

I'm a married father, but having children is not the only reason people get married. Hell, you can be a family without having kids.

[Majine]

Absolutely batshit crazy lady at Lincoln, NE meeting re: LGBT protections

I uh... wha.... this is.... the f...

[Famassu]

They'd do better to argue why their relationships can be just as stable environments as straight couples for the purposes of raising children, since that's the primary interest the government has in regulating the institution of marriage. Just loving someone doesn't give you the right to marry them, after all.

Because gay people would actually WANT those children, they'd probably make better parents than a lot of straight couples. That's the benefit. There are too many straight couples who have children who

1) don't want one
2) are shitty parents
3) can't even take care of themselves properly, let alone their children

To be gay and to have children means you can't get them by accident, meaning there's at least some will to have children, meaning you'll put at least some effort into raising one. There are a lot of reasons people get married, what the government thinks about that doesn't matter. At all.

[Perkel]

Your past post seemed to suggest that allowing same sex couples to adopt was merely for some social experimentation.

No i stated i wouldn't want to use children as part of social experiment. Big diffrence here and i stated i'm ok with this if i rule out "morality" part because as i stated i'm in no position to talk about it. I didn't raise any kid and i have no knowelage and experience be it teoretical or practical.

[dude]

I used to believe the word marriage should be completely removed from the government, you know, civil unions for all.
But now I recognize the word marriage has changed it's meaning and that religious people should get over it. If we have civil marriages, we should have same sex one as well.

[Dunk#7]

Read this the other day and it is relevant to the discussion at hand so I will just paste it in here:

It was really no surprise to most of us when President Obama "came out" in favor of homosexual marriage in an interview with a national news reporter. What is incredibly alarming, though, is that in the same context of endorsing same sex marriage he spoke of himself as being a "practicing Christian," but apparently arrived at his decision after discussing it with his wife and two children. You would think that a "practicing Christian" would be informed by the Scripture rather than his political base or even his dearest family. As a "practicing Christian" there really is no way to miss this unless you willfully miss it! If you believe the Bible...homosexuality is wrong and if it is wrong then you must conclude that homosexual marriage is also wrong. To arrive at any other conclusion is a logical (and more importantly a spiritual) fallacy! The time for Christians to engage in the discussion is now and we must do it with poise, politeness, and much prayerfulness. An excellent blog post by Rev. Kevin DeYoung points out five reasons Christians cannot be silent on this issue and must let their voices be heard. I challenge you to consider his points and to not avoid the conversation many are having around the proverbial "water-cooler" today. It will mean being ridiculed by some of your friends, but to say nothing at all is just wrong. Kevin DeYoung explains why we cannot be silent: 1. Every time the issue of gay marriage has been put to a vote by the people, the people have voted to uphold traditional marriage. Even in California. In fact, the amendment passed in North Carolina on Tuesday by a wider margin (61-39) than a similar measure passed six years ago in Virginia (57-42). The amendment passed in North Carolina, a swing state Obama carried in 2008, by 22 percentage points.We should not think that gay marriage in all the land is a foregone conclusion. To date 30 states have constitutionally defined marriage as between a man and a woman. 2. The promotion and legal recognition of homosexual unions is not in the interest of the common good. That may sound benighted, if not bigoted. But we must say it in love: codifying the indistinguishability of gender will not make for the “peace of the city.” It rubs against the grain of the universe, and when you rub against the grain of divine design you’re bound to get splinters. Or worse. The society which says sex is up to your own definition and the family unit is utterly fungible is not a society that serves its children, its women, or its own long term well being. 3. Marriage is not simply the term we use to describe those relationships most precious to us. The word means something and has meant something throughout history. Marriage is more than a union of hearts and minds. It involves a union of bodies–and not bodies in any old way we please, as if giving your cousin a wet willy in the ear makes you married. Marriage, to quote one set of scholars, is a "comprehensive union of two sexually complementary persons who seal (consummate or complete) their relationship by the generative act—by the kind of activity that is by its nature fulfilled by the conception of a child. So marriage itself is oriented to and fulfilled by the bearing, rearing, and education of children." This conjugal view of marriage states in complex language what would have been a truism until a couple generations ago. Marriage is what children (can) come from. Where that element is not present (at the level of sheer design and function, even if not always in fulfillment), marriage is not a reality. We should not concede that “gay marriage” is really marriage. What’s more, as Christians we understand that the great mystery of marriage can never be captured between a relationship of Christ and Christ or church and church. 4. Allowing for the legalization of gay marriage further normalizes what was until very recently, and still should be, considered deviant behavior. While it’s true that politics is downstream from culture, it’s also true that law is one of the tributaries contributing to culture. In our age of hyper-tolerance we try to avoid stigmas, but stigmas can be an expression of common grace. Who knows how many stupid sinful things I’ve been kept from doing because I knew my peers and my community would deem it shameful. Our cultural elites may never consider homosexuality shameful, but amendments that define marriage as one man and one woman serve a noble end by defining what is as what ought to be. We do not help each other in the fight for holiness when we allow for righteousness to look increasingly strange and sin to look increasingly normal. 5. We are naive if we think a laissez faire compromise would be enjoyed by all if only the conservative Christians would stop being so dogmatic. The next step after giving up the marriage fight is not a happy millennium of everyone everywhere doing marriage in his own way. The step after surrender is conquest. I’m not suggesting heterosexuals would no longer be able to get married. What I am suggesting is that the cultural pressure will not stop with allowing for some “marriages” to be homosexual. It will keep mounting until all accept and finally celebrate that homosexuality is one of Diversity’s great gifts. The goal is not for different expressions of marriage, but for the elimination of definitions altogether. Capitulating on gay marriage may feel like giving up an inch in bad law to gain a mile in good will. But the reality will be far different. For as in all of the devil’s bargains, the good will doesn’t last nearly so long as the law." Keep in mind what Solomon said the next time you think of the continuing decline of the moral values of this country: "When there is moral rot within a nation, its government topples easily. But wise and knowledgeable leaders bring stability." (Proverbs 28:2 NLT [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] )

[Perkel]

It's ok for this lady to be married and have kids? LOL

holy fuck

[dude]

Read this the other day and it is relevant to the discussion at hand so I will just paste it in here:

It rubs against the grain of the universe, and when you rub against the grain of divine design you’re bound to get splinters

Uh-Huh. This metaphor doesn't even make sense. How do you get splinters from rubbing a grain?

[Dunk#7]

Uh-Huh. This metaphor doesn't even make sense. How do you get splinters from rubbing a grain?

Haha you changed your post like 3 times.

Generally the term grain is applied to various types of wood. Thus you get splinters by going against the grain which in this case would just refer to problems.

[FStop7]

It's icky.

Checkmate. Gay marriage banned forever. :(

[Perkel]

I used to believe the word marriage should be completely removed from the government, you know, civil unions for all. But now I recognize the word marriage has changed it's meaning and that religious people should get over it. If we have civil marriages, we should have same sex one as well.

What is a point of marriage act ? Why even there should be something as marriage in this age ?
Those are real questions.



edit
There wouldn't be all this talk if there wasn't be money involved. People would marry for only religious reasons and there wouldn't be any civil marriage hance no priviliges to married people (tax,haousing etc).

[Czigga]

This thread is a waste of bandwidth because you're not going to get any people against gay marriage posting why they are opposed.

OP should rename the thread "Gay marriage supporters agreement thread"

But anyway, I'm pro gay marriage. No reason not to be other than homophobia and slippery slope arguments.

[Loofy]

I used to believe the word marriage should be completely removed from the government, you know, civil unions for all. But now I recognize the word marriage has changed it's meaning and that religious people should get over it. If we have civil marriages, we should have same sex one as well.

Religious people want the word marriage, if it means something to them then ok. To everyone else its just 'we want the word marriage too because religion cant have it all to themselves.'

For most of Western history, marriage was a private contract between two families. Until the 16th-century, Christian churches accepted the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple’s declarations. If two people claimed that they had exchanged marital vows—even without witnesses—the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married. State courts in the United States have routinely held that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage.[1] Marriage license application records from government authorities are widely available starting from the mid-19th century. -WIKI

17th century came before the 19th century.

[qcf x2]

This thread is a waste of bandwidth because you're not going to get any people against gay marriage posting why they are opposed. OP should rename the thread "Gay marriage supporters agreement thread"

True that.

[dude]

Haha you changed your post like 3 times. Generally the term grain is applied to various types of wood. Thus you get splinters by going against the grain which in this case would just refer to problems.

Well, the quoted text was just so stupid I didn't know what to say.

And nice to know! You learn something new everyday.

What is a point of marriage act ? Why even there should be something as marriage in this age ? Those are real questions.

People still want to get married and it has some bureaucratical benefit to the state, I guess.
I personally am not a big fan of the concept of marriage, and think it's outdated and silly. But it does have some benefits for the country to allow people to join themselves into a family and I see no reason to not allow it. My problem was, that it's not a "marriage" but a civil union, but now I don't care because words change and marriage has been divorced (pun intended) of it's religious origins. We do have civil marriages, after all.

[Czigga]

The real issue is why government has anything to do with marriage at all, straight, gay, polygamous, etc. Such bullshit, it's just used as a tool to get either the left or the right to rally supporters to whichever side they rally for.

This should be a purely personal issue. Unfortunately it's been forced into politics and as a result has divided people even more than they otherwise would have been.

[Loofy]

What load of crap, Perkel. As if there aren't enough babies being born in the world. Ever hear of adoption?

Yeah but now you got people like doogie howser mixing his sperm with his partners in a vile then injecting it into some mother they paid. I dont think thats right. Now before I get called a bigot I dont think sperm/egg donations should be legal for anyone(single parents or hetero parents). The whole idea seems worst than prostitution to me.

Adopt.

[Trojita]

Read this the other day and it is relevant to the discussion at hand so I will just paste it in here:

I just thought of something.

Go into Red Lobster. Find someone eating Lobster, Crab, Shrimp, Oysters and ask them if they are a Christian and if they oppose Gay Marriage. If they say yes, drop their plate on the floor.

[Mercury Fred]

Read this the other day and it is relevant to the discussion at hand so I will just paste it in here:

Relevant? Looks like a bunch of bullshit to me.

[Zeppu]

[Mr. Serious Business]

Read this the other day and it is relevant to the discussion at hand so I will just paste it in here:

I think those types of arguments went out the window with the 50% divorce rate.

[AgentP]

When everyone is special, no one is special.










Let them marry, doesn't effect my life one bit.

[Perkel]

People still want to get married and it has some bureaucratical benefit to the state, I guess. I personally am not a big fan of the concept of marriage, and think it's outdated and silly. But it does have some benefits for the country to allow people to join themselves into a family and I see no reason to not allow it. My problem was, that it's not a "marriage" but a civil union, but now I don't care because words change and marriage has been divorced (pun intended) of it's religious origins. We do have civil marriages, after all.

exacly, in this age marriage is financial institusion not religious or "love concept".

Those benefits aren't free. Country doesn't give crap about people it gives benefits ecause it want something from you and your partner.

Already in my country there was idea to stop giving benefits all married people and give benefits only to people who have children. The more children you have the more benefits you will get. Something like this.

I'm ateist so if there is no benefit i won't get civil marriage with my girlfriend.

[AgentP]

Read this the other day and it is relevant to the discussion at hand so I will just paste it in here:

According to the Bible, Solomon had seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines

Your posting of religious garbage is funny and ironic.

[Pollux]

I just thought of something. Go into Red Lobster. Find someone eating Lobster, Crab, Shrimp, Oysters and ask them if they are a Christian and if they oppose Gay Marriage. If they say yes, drop their plate on the floor.

...that doesn't even make sense.

[Dunk#7]

I just thought of something. Go into Red Lobster. Find someone eating Lobster, Crab, Shrimp, Oysters and ask them if they are a Christian and if they oppose Gay Marriage. If they say yes, drop their plate on the floor.

That really would not make any sense. I am assuming you are referencing some of the Jewish Law that is documented in the Old Testament and no longer applicable due to the sacrifice of Jesus? Law and Grace are two different things and we are currently under the grace depicted in the New Testament.

Homosexuality is considered sinful in both the Old and the New Testaments, but Biblical teachings are not applicable when discussing this topic with the general public unless the person who claims to support homosexuality has also claimed to be Christian (Obama).

Your posting of religious garbage is funny and ironic.

It is applicable when Obama claims to be Christian and yet in support of gay marriage.

[Trojita]

...that doesn't even make sense.

A person quoting Leviticus to say that Christianity opposes Gay Marriage is a fucking hypocrite if they eat shellfish.

Edit: Above: Where in the New Testament is Homosexuality pointed out as a sin?

[Dunk#7]

A person quoting Leviticus to say that Christianity opposes Gay Marriage is a fucking hypocrite if they eat shellfish. Edit: Above: Where in the New Testament is Homosexuality pointed out as a sin?

1 Cor. 6:9-10
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Rom. 1:26-28
"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

[Perkel]

Your posting of religious garbage is funny and ironic.

well muslim people still can have many wifes...

i wonder if this sort of system will come to western world if we have this live how you want attitude more advanced and less stupid people.

But not only man and 6 wifes but also woman and 5 men and 2 men 2 women etc.

clint eastwood quote.jpg

[ConfusingJazz]

A person quoting Leviticus to say that Christianity opposes Gay Marriage is a fucking hypocrite if they eat shellfish. Edit: Above: Where in the New Testament is Homosexuality pointed out as a sin?

The better question is: Who gives a shit what the Bible says about homosexuality when it comes to public policy?

[Plumbob]

No one can marry members of the same sex. Where is the inequality?

Men can marry women, but women cannot marry women. Sounds like a case of arbitrary discrimination against women, in violation of the fourteenth amendment.


The fact that parallel discrimination exists against men (women can marry men, but men cannot marry men), does not make the first case of discrimination okay. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Dunk#7]

The better question is: Who gives a shit what the Bible says about homosexuality when it comes to public policy?

That is exactly what I mentioned above. It is only a valid debate when the person in support of gay marriage professes to be a Christian (Obama)

You have to approach it from a logical standpoint when debating for public policy in general.

[Perkel]

That is exactly what I mentioned above. It is only a valid debate when the person in support of gay marriage professes to be a Christian (Obama) You have to approach it from a logical standpoint when debating for public policy in general.

[Trojita]

1 Cor. 6:9-10 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God." Rom. 1:26-28 "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

Well first off, great it isn't in the Gospels, so Jesus didn't say it. Second, what version of the bible are you referencing? Do you know what the original text looks like?

That entry in Roman's is widely contested in the original meaning.

[BeesEight]

Nope, not going to touch this argument.

Essentially.

Thank you Perkel.

[Mercury Fred]

That is exactly what I mentioned above. It is only a valid debate when the person in support of gay marriage professes to be a Christian (Obama)

Sorry, no, it's never valid.

[hayguyz]

that's a pretty flawed diagram on the right

[Osietra]

Why are the pacmen trying to eat the crosses. Its a satire on religious franchises. As the stars are not threatened at all.


If Islam adopted the golden arch as their trademark, that would be amazing.

[Perkel]

Jesus didn't say it.

why you think everything on those books have anything with what Jesus said if most of them were created centuries after his death (if he even lived).

History already proved that most concepts of church are selfcreated by people not by someone who founded church.

Like confession in katholic. It was created in Germany (back then Holy roman empire) to have quick cash from lords and higher status people by forgiving them their sins as giving money to priests was part of that forgiving. It quickly widespreed for whole katholic church and few years later every lord knowed who stole their grain and who hidden their profits from them since priest were sundays guests on lords villas. And quickly they found siritual texts and reason to justify it today. (was one of main reason for devide in church)

Arguing about it is pointless.

[hydragonwarrior]

As predicted, 100% of the posters here agree with it, which is not surprising as we're part of the internet generation and fairly open minded when it comes to this kind of topic. The best way to get a debate going is on a political site - just be prepared to get very, very angry lol

[Trojita]

why you think everything on those books have anything with what Jesus said if most of them were created centuries after his death (if he even lived). History already proved that most concepts of church are selfcreated by people not by someone who founded church. Like confession in katholic. It was created in Germany (back then Holy roman empire) to have quick cash from lords and higher status people by forgiving them their sins as giving money to priests was part of that forgiving. It quickly widespreed for whole katholic church and few years later every lord knowed who stole their grain and who hidden their profits from them since priest were sundays guests on lords villas. And quickly they found siritual texts and reason to justify it today. (was one of main reason for devide in church) Arguing about it is pointless.

Is this some Mortal Kombat church?

You are talking about indulgences, which are completely separate from confession.

[Perkel]

As predicted, 100% of the posters here agree with it, which is not surprising as we're part of the internet generation and fairly open minded when it comes to this kind of topic. The best way to get a debate going is on a political site - just be prepared to get very, very angry lol

My opinion is kill it where it hurt the most.

Scrap completly marriage as any civil right leave it as religion status. Leave benefits only to people who are rising kids (be it gay , straith, robot or any other)

problem solved

[DarthWoo]

My opinion is kill it where it hurt the most. Scrap completly marriage as any civil right leave it as religion status. Leave benefits only to people who are rising kids (be it gay , straith, robot or any other) problem solved

Then you'd still have to deal with the nutters who will do anything in their power to prevent same sex adoptions.

[Mercury Fred]

My opinion is kill it where it hurt the most. Scrap completly marriage as any civil right leave it as religion status. Leave benefits only to people who are rising kids (be it gay , straith, robot or any other) problem solved

Or we all say lol to people who allow bizarre, ancient texts full of goofy fantasy stories to run their lives and stop allowing them to deny other people civil rights.

problem solved

[Perkel]

Is this some Mortal Kombat church? You are talking about indulgences, which are completely separate from confession.

sorry my English didn't contain indulgences verb. And yes they are diffrent. But still church is playing ball like it is ok, and it was one of main reasons for devide in church, same thing as celibacy for priests.

Mortal Kombat church would make more sance to me as it would be more logical..

[AgentP]

It is applicable when Obama claims to be Christian and yet in support of gay marriage.

WTF cares what you think Christian means? To me it means bigotry, hypocrisy, genocide and traveling around with twelve guys and them eating man flesh. Should I make laws based on that?

[red_13th]

My country's Supreme Court recognized partnerships (you have almost the same rights as a married couple if you are in a stable relatioship with a person), but actual marriage isn't technically allowed. However the exact same reasoning used to allow partnerships can be used for marriage, so if a homosexual couple goes to court they probably will be able to get married. I'm getting "married" in two years but we still don't know what we'll do. It's kind of weird.

[Pollux]

why you think everything on those books have anything with what Jesus said if most of them were created centuries after his death (if he even lived). History already proved that most concepts of church are selfcreated by people not by someone who founded church. Like confession in katholic. It was created in Germany (back then Holy roman empire) to have quick cash from lords and higher status people by forgiving them their sins as giving money to priests was part of that forgiving. It quickly widespreed for whole katholic church and few years later every lord knowed who stole their grain and who hidden their profits from them since priest were sundays guests on lords villas. And quickly they found siritual texts and reason to justify it today. (was one of main reason for devide in church) Arguing about it is pointless.

1. It's Catholic.
2. Those aren't confessions, they're indulgences.
3. Indulgences have nothing to do with the forgiveness of sin, but are for the reduction of the punishment that one incurs when they sin.
4. The practice of indulgences in the Catholic Church date back to the 6th Century when they were put in place to replace previous methods of reducing ones punishment for sin.
5. Yes, the practice was abused like absolute crazy in the Middle Ages.
6. Yes, it was one of the reasons for the Reformation.
7. The abuse of indulgences was ended with the Council of Trent.
8. Confession actually does have Biblical justification.
9. Confession had Biblical justification even during the time of the Reformation.

Not that this is the point of the thread, but you name a Catholic doctrine, and I can probably give you a legitimate justification for it. You honestly sound like you have no idea what your talking about, and your grasp of Catholic doctrine and Church history is tenuous at best.

[Dreams-Visions]

The end.

[Perkel]

1. It's Catholic. 2. Those aren't confessions, they're indulgences. 3. Indulgences have nothing to do with the forgiveness of sin, but are for the reduction of the punishment that one incurs when they sin. 4. The practice of indulgences in the Catholic Church date back to the 6th Century when they were put in place to replace previous methods of reducing ones punishment for sin. 5. Yes, the practice was abused like absolute crazy in the Middle Ages. 6. Yes, it was one of the reasons for the Reformation. 7. The abuse of indulgences was ended with the Council of Trent. 8. Confession actually does have Biblical justification. 9. Confession had Biblical justification even during the time of the Reformation. Not that this is the point of the thread, but you name a Catholic doctrine, and I can probably give you a legitimate justification for it. You honestly sound like you have no idea what your talking about, and your grasp of Catholic doctrine and Church history is tenuous at best.

Yes i'm uninformed but i have knowelage for many subjects. Can't be schoolar on all areas. Point of my post is that most of my ex-faith were things that were forged, created, manipulated to have outcome positive to themselfs errasing things on their way because it can break fundaments of church (like Galileo and Kopernik discoveries) by people who were indoctrynized by each generation.


No mather what katholik church can say about god or any other thing i won't believe it. Simply because of middle ages. It is mayor fackup, fuck i even today remember my old granpa story about how one of his friend child was threated by priest from sickness. Priest said child will live if they will put him in stove and by end of second prayer it will be healed if gods want it. Ofcourse child died burned.

This was only one "example" if older church. And middle ages were full of it with inquisition as frontman to other horrible practices proving that church didn't have a clue what it was doing all that time.