Really

Wyoming, MI

#166 Mar 15, 2013
Thor wrote:
<quoted text>
In the United States, a secular country, marriage is recognized as a legal construct, not a religious construct. Religious doctrine has no standing in our secular law.
Man created marriage thousands of years before man created the Abrahamic religions.
Civil unions are not the same as marriage. If they were the same they would not have two different names.
This isn't any different than the separate drinking fountains for whites and coloreds.
And your last statement is sheer stupidity. It doesn't come close to the civil rights battles and that argument is disrespectful to people who fought and lost their lives in that battle. It's about a minority group of people trying to force their beliefs on the majority of people.

“SPEBSQSA”

Since: Aug 08

Maryland

#167 Mar 15, 2013
Really wrote:
<quoted text>And your last statement is sheer stupidity. It doesn't come close to the civil rights battles and that argument is disrespectful to people who fought and lost their lives in that battle. It's about a minority group of people trying to force their beliefs on the majority of people.
Actually Really, one could make an arguement for ex-slaves and women doing the same thing.
SeenItBefore

Three Rivers, MI

#168 Mar 15, 2013
Really wrote:
<quoted text>And your last statement is sheer stupidity. It doesn't come close to the civil rights battles and that argument is disrespectful to people who fought and lost their lives in that battle. It's about a minority group of people trying to force their beliefs on the majority of people.
Huh. So the top 1%, or even top 10% economically aren't the minority and forcing their "beliefs" on the majority of the people. But that's different isn't it. Not in the sense of the minority v. majority.

To stick with the gays though, are you aware of how many have been ostracized, discriminated against and yes even killed because the majority haven't agreed with the minority. Why is it that different?

Seeing as you're such the research advocate maybe you ought to research that.
SeenItBefore

Three Rivers, MI

#169 Mar 15, 2013
Mr Wiggley wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually Really, one could make an arguement for ex-slaves and women doing the same thing.
Absolutely!

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

#170 Mar 15, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not disagreeing with any of it per-say. Still it doesn't negate what I've said about marriage not being a Biblical law. Spiritually the tenants of marriage are best honored. But as the Christian Marriage site points out even "Christian marriages" have a 41-43% chance of ending in divorce. Though it doesn't specifically state Christian marriages. And that stat is lower than the actual divorce rate. Wouldn't it be a sin for a Christian marriage to end in divorce. The Bible says it is.
There is a study out that says 50% of the 50+% of marriages ending in divorce are filed by women. Out of that number less than 1/3 are for reasons of infidelity, abuse of any kind etc. The primary reason(s) are listed as 'he doesn't fulfill her needs'.
In the case of "morality" as long as they are not causing any actual harm to anyone else wouldn't the "sin" of gay marriage be on their souls? And there also are more than one study out that says on the majority gay tendencies are not by choice. And to say it sets an example that homosexuality will cause otherwise heterosexual people to sin is nonsense.
As long as they aren't causing direct harm to anyone else I see no spiritual rationale for dictating they follow the moral standards of someone else. Especially those who believe in the freedom of choices shouldn't be obstructed by anyone else.
Oh, and after many years of intense line upon line, line upon line, precept upon precept, precept upon precept Bible study I would need to be clarified by more than just opinions.
Yes, divorce, especially for “because s/he didn’t meet my needs” is a sin. Not sure what that has to do with the first part though. Marriage was a religious contract before it became a legal contract. If we were in India it would still be a religious law although not Biblical since that isn’t the primary religion. At the core two people promised a higher power to wed and their marriage was blessed by a representative of their god. In the western world we talk about it as being based on the Bible versus the Hindu scripture

Gay marriage per se isn’t the sin, it is the act that is the sin. By legalizing and recognizing gay behavior society is denying the sin and giving acceptance to the act. And sin isn’t against another person, sin is against God. Probably 90% of people’s sins are against God, not someone else.

This topic has been beat to death here on Topix. Based on the Theory of Evolution, homosexuality could not have been passed on throughout history. Two male somethings, millions of years before mankind show up go off and set up house. They die off without having any offspring and the gene goes away. You can’t get a homosexual gene from the first mammals to mankind much less from the dinosaurs to mankind. Based on the TOE, it is either a choice or an abnormality. Under either option homosexuality is not “normal” which is what is desired.

What you are advocating is secularism which is very popular in most cultures but doesn’t have a rational leg to stand on. There are plenty of books on that subject but I’d be more than happy to discuss that at greater length if you want.

“SPEBSQSA”

Since: Aug 08

Maryland

#171 Mar 15, 2013
FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, divorce, especially for “because s/he didn’t meet my needs” is a sin. Not sure what that has to do with the first part though. Marriage was a religious contract before it became a legal contract. If we were in India it would still be a religious law although not Biblical since that isn’t the primary religion. At the core two people promised a higher power to wed and their marriage was blessed by a representative of their god. In the western world we talk about it as being based on the Bible versus the Hindu scripture
Gay marriage per se isn’t the sin, it is the act that is the sin. By legalizing and recognizing gay behavior society is denying the sin and giving acceptance to the act. And sin isn’t against another person, sin is against God. Probably 90% of people’s sins are against God, not someone else.
This topic has been beat to death here on Topix. Based on the Theory of Evolution, homosexuality could not have been passed on throughout history. Two male somethings, millions of years before mankind show up go off and set up house. They die off without having any offspring and the gene goes away. You can’t get a homosexual gene from the first mammals to mankind much less from the dinosaurs to mankind. Based on the TOE, it is either a choice or an abnormality. Under either option homosexuality is not “normal” which is what is desired.
What you are advocating is secularism which is very popular in most cultures but doesn’t have a rational leg to stand on. There are plenty of books on that subject but I’d be more than happy to discuss that at greater length if you want.
The definition fits perfectly here...SIN...
Self
Inflicted
Nonsense

No more can be said...

“SPEBSQSA”

Since: Aug 08

Maryland

#172 Mar 15, 2013
FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, divorce, especially for “because s/he didn’t meet my needs” is a sin. Not sure what that has to do with the first part though. Marriage was a religious contract before it became a legal contract. If we were in India it would still be a religious law although not Biblical since that isn’t the primary religion. At the core two people promised a higher power to wed and their marriage was blessed by a representative of their god. In the western world we talk about it as being based on the Bible versus the Hindu scripture
Gay marriage per se isn’t the sin, it is the act that is the sin. By legalizing and recognizing gay behavior society is denying the sin and giving acceptance to the act. And sin isn’t against another person, sin is against God. Probably 90% of people’s sins are against God, not someone else.
This topic has been beat to death here on Topix. Based on the Theory of Evolution, homosexuality could not have been passed on throughout history. Two male somethings, millions of years before mankind show up go off and set up house. They die off without having any offspring and the gene goes away. You can’t get a homosexual gene from the first mammals to mankind much less from the dinosaurs to mankind. Based on the TOE, it is either a choice or an abnormality. Under either option homosexuality is not “normal” which is what is desired.
What you are advocating is secularism which is very popular in most cultures but doesn’t have a rational leg to stand on. There are plenty of books on that subject but I’d be more than happy to discuss that at greater length if you want.
Another point...based on your usage of DNA and evolution...
We are all the product of incest as we define it today...twice according to your bible.
The god-being has a flaw!!!
vox veritatis

Grand Rapids, MI

#173 Mar 15, 2013
Thor wrote:
Civil unions are not the same as marriage.
Nobody said they were, but they are equivalent or could be made to be so legally which is what the GLBT community keep saying they want...the same legal standing as hetero marriage...or are you now going to admit that's not really what you wanted all along?

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

#174 Mar 15, 2013
Thor wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is it that the religious zealots cannot understand the concept of consent?
Animals cannot consent to marriage.
Children are not mature enough to consent to marriage.
It doesn't hurt anyone for two gay consenting adults to get married.
It would be a lot more honest for the religious fundies to just admit they don't want gay marriage simply because of their religious indoctrination, and not because of any logical reason.
We understand consent. Also consequences.

The idea that an animal or child can not give consent is your opinion. I'd be willing to bet a good lawyer could make a convincing argument against you. In fact, I'm sure that lots of people would argue that today's 15 year old is certainly older than yesteryears 13 year old.

I did notice you didn't address the issue of multiple partners. Was that an oversight or do you feel the same way?

I said "To address your question directly, it’s pretty simple. From a religious viewpoint, homosexuality is morally wrong" I don't think one can get much clearer than that. The issue is that many don't want to accept the idea of something being morally anything. So I say it is morally wrong and that argument gets nowhere with the other person. They are the one's who want a logical argument. And when the logical argument is made then they get even more frustrated. Some mistakenly believe that logic will always lead to the "right" answer and so if my logic is better than yours, I win. The problem is that often both sides can have logical arguments and the result isn't a winner.

So there are both moral and logical reasons. The pro-side basically has emotional reasons. Which means they essentially talk past each other and both sides just get mad.

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

#175 Mar 15, 2013
Thor wrote:
<quoted text>
In the United States, a secular country, marriage is recognized as a legal construct, not a religious construct. Religious doctrine has no standing in our secular law.
Man created marriage thousands of years before man created the Abrahamic religions.
Civil unions are not the same as marriage. If they were the same they would not have two different names.
This isn't any different than the separate drinking fountains for whites and coloreds.
I said "As a point of fact they could be more "equal" than marriage if the law made it that way." Emphasis on the COULD.

Prior to religion, people did (and still do) live together. That isn't marriage. People got married through their religion long before governments got involved.

Seperate drinking fountains, schools etc. was about civil rights. There is nothing about homosexuality that makes it a civil right any more than obesity or drug addiction is a civil right.

“SPEBSQSA”

Since: Aug 08

Maryland

#176 Mar 15, 2013
FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
We understand consent. Also consequences.
The idea that an animal or child can not give consent is your opinion. I'd be willing to bet a good lawyer could make a convincing argument against you. In fact, I'm sure that lots of people would argue that today's 15 year old is certainly older than yesteryears 13 year old.
I did notice you didn't address the issue of multiple partners. Was that an oversight or do you feel the same way?
I said "To address your question directly, it’s pretty simple. From a religious viewpoint, homosexuality is morally wrong" I don't think one can get much clearer than that. The issue is that many don't want to accept the idea of something being morally anything. So I say it is morally wrong and that argument gets nowhere with the other person. They are the one's who want a logical argument. And when the logical argument is made then they get even more frustrated. Some mistakenly believe that logic will always lead to the "right" answer and so if my logic is better than yours, I win. The problem is that often both sides can have logical arguments and the result isn't a winner.
So there are both moral and logical reasons. The pro-side basically has emotional reasons. Which means they essentially talk past each other and both sides just get mad.
Your whole post was a waste because of one comment..."The issue is that many don't want to accept the idea of something being morally anything"...
You reveal yourself to be incapable of understanding others due to your warped "moral beliefs" grounded in your religion.
vox veritatis

Grand Rapids, MI

#177 Mar 15, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
And the definition of what love is found in 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 says nothing about it being between man and woman.
Of course it doesn't. It's not talking about that kind of love exclusively. You seem unaware that there are different words for love in the Greek language...many of them, actually.
In Greek, the word for sexual love was Eros. The word for non-sexual affection (such as between parent and child) was storge. The word for brotherly or frienship love was Philia and the word for sacrificial love was Agape. Agape was used by Christians to express the unconditional love of God and is the word used in 1 Corinthians 13 while the love found in marriage relationships could encompass all of these words.
Thor

Rockford, MI

#178 Mar 15, 2013
FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage was a religious contract before it became a legal contract.
This is a lie.

Marriage developed as a contract between humans long before any organized religion was created. These contracts were largely about property and arrangements. They had nothing to do with religion.

http://ehistory.osu.edu/world/articles/articl...
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2000/1...

Marriage was co-opted by religions much later.
Thor

Rockford, MI

#179 Mar 15, 2013
FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
People got married through their religion long before governments got involved.
This is a lie.

See my previous post above.
Batch 37 Pain Is Good

Highland, MI

#180 Mar 15, 2013
Ohh!!! Second week of huge ratings for their time slot....... More viewers than all NBC's viewers combined for a week..... WHY?????

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/...
Thor

Rockford, MI

#181 Mar 15, 2013
FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
We understand consent. Also consequences.
The idea that an animal or child can not give consent is your opinion. I'd be willing to bet a good lawyer could make a convincing argument against you.
If there was a compelling argument for animals and children being able to give consent, then pedophilia and bestiality would not be convictable offenses.

Your weak argument easily fails.
FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
I did notice you didn't address the issue of multiple partners. Was that an oversight or do you feel the same way?
Sure, polygamous marriage could be defined as marriage by a government. It has been and does exist in other countries. Marriage has been defined and redefined many times in history by many cultures and governments.
In America it will be simply redefined to include any two consenting adults regardless of s e x, just as it has been in some other countries.
If you want to push polygamy, go ahead and start a petition or movement.
FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
I said "To address your question directly, it’s pretty simple. From a religious viewpoint, homosexuality is morally wrong" I don't think one can get much clearer than that. The issue is that many don't want to accept the idea of something being morally anything. So I say it is morally wrong and that argument gets nowhere with the other person. They are the one's who want a logical argument. And when the logical argument is made then they get even more frustrated. Some mistakenly believe that logic will always lead to the "right" answer and so if my logic is better than yours, I win. The problem is that often both sides can have logical arguments and the result isn't a winner.
So there are both moral and logical reasons. The pro-side basically has emotional reasons. Which means they essentially talk past each other and both sides just get mad.
When religion has to resort to saying something is immoral based solely on their own religious doctrine, it is because they can't make a legitimate, logical argument against it.

This is the case with gay marriage.

The proof is that those who oppose it still cannot come up with a single example of how they will be specifically harmed by gay people getting married.
Really

Wyoming, MI

#182 Mar 15, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
Huh. So the top 1%, or even top 10% economically aren't the minority and forcing their "beliefs" on the majority of the people. But that's different isn't it. Not in the sense of the minority v. majority.
To stick with the gays though, are you aware of how many have been ostracized, discriminated against and yes even killed because the majority haven't agreed with the minority. Why is it that different?
Seeing as you're such the research advocate maybe you ought to research that.
I knew that one of you progressives would bring that up. Since you brought it up miss high and mighty, perhaps you can fill the class in on the numbers? I am sure they are inflated by one of your left wing fanatics to make a point.
Really

Wyoming, MI

#183 Mar 15, 2013
Mr Wiggley wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually Really, one could make an arguement for ex-slaves and women doing the same thing.
Actually, anyone who isn't willing to listen to the other side and consider the arguments could be considered to be doing the same thing. For example, you spend a lot of time saying that Christians are trying to force their views on you, but you don't seem to consider that when you ridicule a Christian's views, you are doing the exact same thing. I still maintain that homosexual marriage doesn't come close to being a civil rights argument. There are not guarantees in the constitution that anyone can marry, not even heterosexuals. The entire issue is about a certain group demanding something that they didn't even want until someone said "no".
SeenItBefore

Three Rivers, MI

#184 Mar 15, 2013
Really wrote:
<quoted text>I knew that one of you progressives would bring that up. Since you brought it up miss high and mighty, perhaps you can fill the class in on the numbers? I am sure they are inflated by one of your left wing fanatics to make a point.
What numbers would that be? You mean the numbers of gays that have been ostracized, discriminated against, mugged and yes even killed?

Do the numbers really matter to you? If only a relatively few women are raped does the relatively low number make it more acceptable to you? If only a small number of children are physically abused does the relatively low number make it acceptable to you?

But then again we are back to who is expecting who to back up their claims and doing the research. I thought it was you that always does and I, us progressives, don't. So for lack of "the numbers" you can deny it has happened?

“Where I came from”

Since: Jan 09

the universe

#185 Mar 16, 2013
"From a religious viewpoint, homosexuality is morally wrong" FLbeaver . Which religion are you talking about? There are so many

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Grand Rapids Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Local News Women (Apr '09) 6 hr Fabio 2,778
News 'The fight is absolutely on' Wed MO_EATS_DUNGS 5
Old things and places we remember from the Gran... (Feb '09) Dec 5 a commenter 1,131
News The Latest: Trump calls Election Day 'our Indep... Dec 4 Cuddles6778 284
So glad Hillary is not President Dec 1 Batch 37 Pain Is ... 9
Amway Fireworks (May '09) Nov 29 Amwaysux 88
News WZZM13 - Holland Police looking for non-custodi... (May '07) Nov 27 TRUTH 22

Grand Rapids Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Grand Rapids Mortgages