Homosexual marriage is legal

Homosexual marriage is legal

There are 2466 comments on the www.examiner.com story from Jun 27, 2013, titled Homosexual marriage is legal. In it, www.examiner.com reports that:

In a 5-4 decision, which, did not surprise anyone, the Supreme Court demonstrated once again that the federal high court is willing to impose by judicial edict what the voters of the individual States in the majority of States have refused to do: allow the marriage of homosexuals ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.examiner.com.

Seeker

Lowell, MA

#814 Jul 12, 2013
Rose Feratu wrote:
<quoted text>
Accurately? Are you fluent in ancient Greek?
So now it's all just a translation problem, right?

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#815 Jul 12, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't say that every penis is supposed to have sex with every vagina, but clearly the two sexual organs were made to fit with each other.
<quoted text>
I said simultaneously pleasurable as in both receiving actual sexual stimulus simultaneously. For you to have that experience with your girlfriend, you have to use a double sided penis prop. If you have to use props, that should tell you something right there.
<quoted text>
And that's exactly why nature made it so pleasurable. So that people would do it, procreate and keep the species going. Otherwise, they might not even bother.
Again, you are ASSuming that in a Same-Sex relationship that both can't receive simultaneous pleasure based on whatever the hell you think, right?

Again, you are ASSuming that the two organs were specifically designed to go together......not that they have to or must.....and if that's the way it works for you....great, but you keep trying to tell others that your way is the ONLY way and it's not!!!

Sorry, but I don't have a "GIRLFRIEND", I have a wife.....and you are making HUGE ASSumptions that one needs a d!ck at all......which is a major ego buster when guys find out that Lesbians aren't interested in what is between their legs!!!

Only people who have no other interests outside of sex would agree with you.......sex is important, it's pleasurable......but it is NOT what makes the world go round!!!

“laugh until your belly hurts”

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#816 Jul 12, 2013
it doesn't even mention homosexuality. what it talks about is the reincorporation of the old roman worship practices of prostitution, and other things, into saul's new religion.

first of all, same sex relations were perfectly acceptable among men during that period in almost every society including the greeks, the romans and the israelites. secondly... saul himself was as queer as a three legged duck, so why would he condemn himself and his catamites in the church... including his main squeeze, timothy?
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is more context.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
So because of their other sins, God also gave them over to the sin of homosexuality rather than protecting them from that. How in the world can someone look at those verses and not think that they are treating homosexual behavior as negative? It's impossible.
People keep reading additional things into what I am saying because of their anger and past experiences. Nowhere does it say that homosexuality is greater than other sins. nowhere does it say that anybody is supposed to attack homosexuals. Nowhere does it say that homosexuals automatically go to hell. But it clearly DOES treat that behavior as sinful. As I said before, sometimes I wish I could rewrite the verses so that it makes it easier for everyone, but I cannot. They are what they are. If someone wants to just throw the whole Bible out as nonsense because they don't like what it says, then fine. That's at least rational. But to change the meaning of clear verses to suit their needs is completely irrational and merely self serving.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#817 Jul 12, 2013
Seeker wrote:
Sure but it doesn't change the fact that homosexual acts is on that list. It's right there in black and white. There's no mistaking it or changing it no matter how much you want to.
Sweetie, I already told you that it is the ONLY time in the entire Bible where same sex acts can be said to have been described. Try and catch up.
Seeker wrote:
The plot of the story does not change what those verses clearly mean.
And what they clearly mean is that these were acts that God gave the presumed to be heterosexual Christians of Rome over to as part of a long list of punishments for their idolatry. What they don't mean is that God has answered your prayer that he abhors homosexuals/homosexuality and/or homosexual acts in the affirmative. HE made them do it dear. This is why the plot of the story is far more important than any verses you see in isolation. Paul didn't write in sound bites.
Seeker wrote:
Who said anything about slaughtering them? Look, the Bible simply says that it is wrong in the eyes of God.
If it was wrong for them to do, then why did God give them over to it to begin with? That's why you need to pay attention to the whole story dear. My point is that in the ONLY place in the Old or New Testament that it can be proved that same sex sex is being discussed, there was no retribution for it, divine or man-made and no call for it to be done. The sex was their punishment for a much greater sin, it was given over to them as a wake up call to be rid of Gods that would have straight folk do such things.
Seeker wrote:
So if I accurately quote verses, I am judging? I guess now, nobody is allowed to accurately quote verses if they don't say what you want them to say. This is insane.
Accurately quoting, but not with accurate understanding of their context and meaning. Just because they say what you say does not mean they say what you say they mean. I am here taking the Bible at its word, you're taking it to mean what you want it to. Except for the proverbs, none of the Bible was written to be dispensed in bite sized chunks. Because when you do, you usually end up missing their actual point.
Seeker wrote:
Look, no matter how much you want to, there's nothing that can be done to change the clear and obvious meaning of those verses. It is considered depraved behavior. Nothing says that homosexuals will automatically go to hell, it is simply listed as detestable to God as are many other sins.
But it is impossible to have a rational conversation with you as you are nothing but a bag of emotions and anger.
You haven't read the next chapter in the book, have you hon? Because if you have, you for some bizarre reason must think it doesn't apply to you. The very verses you quoted give you a hint as to what they really mean, but you're clearly not good at hints and haven't bothered to actually read what is actually being discussed by Paul. Good luck with that. I'm not even a Christian, but even I know you're going to need it.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#818 Jul 12, 2013
Seeker wrote:
So you are basically admitting that homosexual behavior is a punishment for idolatry, and yet on the other hand, you say the behavior is perfectly fine.
Paul was writing to an audience that he presumed was heterosexual and for them, being given over to act against that heterosexual nature, was a punishment. He saw no homosexuals in his audience, he wasn't aware of them. He saw only straight people and thought they shouldn't be doing that while waiting for Jesus to get back. Paul held heterosexual sex in the same high regard. Jesus is coming back people, the least you all can do is keep your legs crossed until he gets here.
Seeker wrote:
So on the one hand, people are either born homosexual or not, but now, when convenient for you, you say that straight people can become homosexual and you are even calling this a punishment for idolatry, and yet, you are also saying there is nothing wrong with the behavior. You are a walking contradiction.
Sweetie, it doesn't take the presence of anyone even remotely homosexually oriented for homosexual acts to take place nor does it take honest to goodness heterosexuals to engage in heterosexual sex. Your orientation is your orientation, your behavior doesn't have to be completely congruent with it, but usually it's a lot more fun if it is.
Seeker wrote:
I don't have to pray for anything, it's right there in black and white. Sometimes I wish it didn't say that and maybe that would make life easier for everybody, but it clearly does and there is nothing that you or I can do about that.
It's there in black and white, but you haven't got a clue as to its meaning and all belief is nothing more than a prayer. It don't matter how absolutely certain you are that you are right, it still isn't your call as to whether you are or not. Sorry.
Seeker wrote:
Sure it's meaningless to you, simply because it doesn't say what you want it to say. Hey, it's the ala carte of religion. Take the parts you like, and don't accept the parts you don't. Hey, why don't you just write your own religion while you are at it. You might as well. If I were homosexual, I would probably be more likely to just reject the whole thing, rather than pick and choose. That would at least be rational.
Again dear, I'm the literalist, you're the one playing pick a mix with the Bible. It wasn't written to be understood in disjointed and out of context bits and pieces. There is no need to reject the Bible if you're homosexual, just some of the folk who are holding them. that would include you, by the way.
Seeker wrote:
I said that people just believe whatever they want to believe and they do this about almost everything in life, and you are proving my point right now. It's like the guy who shouts "people don't shout". It's amazing to watch it happen right before me.
Uh-huh.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#819 Jul 13, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, you are ASSuming that in a Same-Sex relationship that both can't receive simultaneous pleasure based on whatever the hell you think, right?
Well, if they both want to give each other hand jobs at the same time, or use double sided penis props then I guess they could, but last I checked, hand jobs aren't quite as good, and double sided fake penises are merely props. If you have to use a prop, that should tell you something right there.
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, you are ASSuming that the two organs were specifically designed to go together
Oh come on. They weren't? Maybe you think the penis was made to fit the butt hole?
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
......not that they have to or must....
Who said anything about have to or must? You keep adding things to what I say, and it must be emotion that causes you to do that.
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
.and if that's the way it works for you....great, but you keep trying to tell others that your way is the ONLY way and it's not!!!
I NEVER said it's the only way. I just said it's the way nature designed it. Again, putting words into my mouth and it must be emotion that keeps causing you to do that.
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but I don't have a "GIRLFRIEND", I have a wife.....and you are making HUGE ASSumptions that one needs a d!ck at all......which is a major ego buster when guys find out that Lesbians aren't interested in what is between their legs!!!
It isn't for me. I just move on to a regular woman. I have found lesbians to be on the angry side anyway and have never had any interest in them, whereas some guys actually do for whatever reasons they have.
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Only people who have no other interests outside of sex would agree with you.......sex is important, it's pleasurable......but it is NOT what makes the world go round!!!
Look, I didn't even expound like you are, I was merely explaining the way nature designed it. Now you are trying to tell me that I am saying that gay people don't love each other?? Go find where I said that or just shut up, okay? I'm getting tired of listening to people add so many things to what I say. Everybody seems to be nothing but a bag of angry emotions about this and they can't even think clearly.

Look, don't blame me. I'm not mother nature. I didn't design it.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#820 Jul 13, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Sweetie,
Do you know what, butter bum? I didn't even read the rest of your post. I'm tired of listening to sweetie, bunny, buttercup etc...It's just obnoxious, "Ricky poo". If you want to have a conversation, then lose the venom. If you want to be treated in a civilized manner, then start with your own behavior first.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#821 Jul 13, 2013
dances with weebles wrote:
it doesn't even mention homosexuality. what it talks about is the reincorporation of the old roman worship practices of prostitution, and other things, into saul's new religion.
This is merely prostitution?
"In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

It says nothing about prostitution and doesn't just say shameful acts, it says shameful acts WITH OTHER MEN. It also says they abandoned NATURAL relations with WOMEN. How you can even attempt to twist this clear verse is just beyond me.
dances with weebles wrote:
first of all, same sex relations were perfectly acceptable among men during that period in almost every society including the greeks, the romans and the israelites. secondly... saul himself was as queer as a three legged duck, so why would he condemn himself and his catamites in the church... including his main squeeze, timothy?
<quoted text>
So give me the verses that explain the sexual relations between Paul and Timothy.

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#822 Jul 13, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
... it doesn't take the presence of anyone even remotely homosexually oriented for homosexual acts to take place nor does it take honest to goodness heterosexuals to engage in heterosexual sex. Your orientation is your orientation, your behavior doesn't have to be completely congruent with it ...
Yet another Ricky rehash of Robinson.

First Openly Gay Episcopal Bishop Says St. Paul Was Condemning Homosexual Acts by Heterosexuals

( CNSNews.com )– In a section of his New Testament letter to the Romans (1:22-27) dealing with God’s admonitions against same-sex relations, St. Paul was actually writing about heterosexuals who engage in same-sex acts and not homosexuals, said the Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson, the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal church.

"We have to understand that the notion of a homosexual sexual orientation is a notion that’s only about 125 years old," Bishop Robinson told CNSNews.com . "That is to say, St. Paul was talking about people that he understood to be heterosexual engaging in same-sex acts ..."

As Gay as the "B" in GLBT.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#823 Jul 13, 2013
Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet another Ricky rehash of Robinson.
First Openly Gay Episcopal Bishop Says St. Paul Was Condemning Homosexual Acts by Heterosexuals
( CNSNews.com )– In a section of his New Testament letter to the Romans (1:22-27) dealing with God’s admonitions against same-sex relations, St. Paul was actually writing about heterosexuals who engage in same-sex acts and not homosexuals, said the Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson, the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal church.
"We have to understand that the notion of a homosexual sexual orientation is a notion that’s only about 125 years old," Bishop Robinson told CNSNews.com . "That is to say, St. Paul was talking about people that he understood to be heterosexual engaging in same-sex acts ..."
As Gay as the "B" in GLBT.
They just make up any excuse in the world that they can think of. I wonder why they even bother to bring the Bible up at all? On the one hand, they spit at the Bible and say they don't need it, and then on the other hand, they turn around and try to change it's meaning. Which is it? And here's the next contradiction. On the one hand, people are born gay or heterosexual, then, on the other hand, heterosexuals can turn gay. Again, which is it?

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#824 Jul 13, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
They just make up any excuse in the world that they can think of. I wonder why they even bother to bring the Bible up at all?...
Likely because that's they are ONLY argument you make, so we respond to you from your point of view. Your personal interpretations of the Bible are all you have to speak against those God created as God in the first place. It's the only weapon you have in the fight to harm us, and our families.

You certainly don't have a rational or logical secular argument against the existence of gay folks, or our families and legal marriages.

If you don't like the fact that people more learned than yourself respond to your religiously based posts, then don't post them in the first place.

There will always be someone who knows more about the subject than you do, and there will be a million different interpretations of every scripture you use to defend your biases. It's always been that way, throughout history.

That's why there is more than one Christian denomination.

And that is why we try to keep religion out of government and our secular laws, and challenge laws in court when other people's religious biases seep in.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#825 Jul 13, 2013
I don't know what all the hand-wringing is about. It's a done deal.

California is marrying gay folks as we speak, and that's not going to change. DODT is gone, and not coming back.

The federal government will recognize ALL legal marriages, and that's not going to change.

And we have a SC ruling that, while not forcing every state to marry gay folks, calls laws that do just that unconstitutional.

Great case law, there.

It's only a matter of time before the right case hits the SC, and same sex marriage becomes the law of the land. Not saying it will be tomorrow, or next week, but we all know it's coming.

In the mean time we will attack marriage ban after marriage ban, state by state. And much of the time, we will win, either by vote, by the legislatures, or by court action.

Why dither about it? Just accept it.

And don't worry. Other folk's families aren't going to harm you a bit. Marriage won't turn a single straight person gay.

“laugh until your belly hurts”

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#826 Jul 13, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
This is merely prostitution?
"In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."
It says nothing about prostitution and doesn't just say shameful acts, it says shameful acts WITH OTHER MEN. It also says they abandoned NATURAL relations with WOMEN. How you can even attempt to twist this clear verse is just beyond me.
<quoted text>
So give me the verses that explain the sexual relations between Paul and Timothy.
i'm not going to 'give' you anything at all. if you want to learn something, then go to school, read history, and study. i can suggest a good seminary, and a good theology school for you if you'd like, but you'd have to have at least a masters degree before you enroll in either one. would that help you out any?

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#827 Jul 13, 2013
Seeker wrote:
Sorry, but do yourself a favor.......DON'T speak about something you know NOTHING about!!!

I believe it fits where ever the owner get's pleasure putting it......lol!!!

By the way, Lesbians aren't angry individuals......they just get tired of asinine comments like some of the ones you make!!!

This really is something you are clueless about and maybe should STFU about it......I don't tell you what's pleasurable...or how to enjoy your sexual activities......why do you think it's okay for you to tell the GLBTQI Community what is right or what sex organs are designed for? Frankly, what we do in the privacy of our homes is NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS!!!
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#828 Jul 13, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Likely because that's they are ONLY argument you make, so we respond to you from your point of view.
That's not true at all, I wrote an entire post to you using mother nature as my reference. And I was not even the first person to bring Romans up, it was a pro homosexual person who tried to use a verse that suggested that people should clear their minds, as to suggest that Romans was saying to just accept homosexuality. So then I asked him about what he thought of the verses from Romans that I quoted where homosexuality is clearly labeled as wrong.
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Your personal interpretations of the Bible are all you have to speak against those God created as God in the first place.
Look, those verses I quoted are quite clear. There is little to no room for "interpretation".
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
It's the only weapon you have in the fight to harm us, and our families.
It's not a weapon at all, and I even clearly said to you in a past post that I wish the verses didn't say what they did as it would make people's lives a lot easier. But they are what they are. You can't just go and rewrite them. Look, dump the Bible if you don't like what it says, but don't try to rewrite it.
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
You certainly don't have a rational or logical secular argument against the existence of gay folks,
I made an entire argument using mother nature, where I explained how pedophilia is actually more natural than homosexuality, even though it is CLEARLY, socially abhorrent, and bizarre in my eyes. When a girl menstruates, nature is saying it is time to have a baby, and it doesn't seem to care what age the person is who impregnates her, as long as the species continues
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
or our families and legal marriages.
I already wrote a whole post about how marriage has been essentially dead anyway, and homosexual marriage is the final nail in the coffin. If people can get out of marriage so easily and frequently, then the whole contract is a sham anyway. Everybody should just get civil unions for legal and financial reasons at this point because that's all that marriage really is these days anyway.
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
If you don't like the fact that people more learned than yourself respond to your religiously based posts, then don't post them in the first place.
Are you kidding me? You didn't teach me anything about the meaning of those verses, you only showed me that people are willing to twist things into whatever they need them to be.
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
There will always be someone who knows more about the subject than you do, and there will be a million different interpretations of every scripture you use to defend your biases.
Come on, those verses are very very clear. Maybe some other verses are more open to interpretation, but not those ones.
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
It's always been that way, throughout history.
That's why there is more than one Christian denomination.
And that is why we try to keep religion out of government and our secular laws, and challenge laws in court when other people's religious biases seep in.
Who ever said religion should be in it? But the fact of the matter is that if some people believe in the Bible, then while they can believe in tolerance, they are not going to put a rubber stamp of approval on such behavior. In Christianity, it is said, love the sinner, hate the sin. The people of California clearly said they do not want to put a rubber stamp of approval on it, and the courts shoved it down their throats anyway, by a very thin margin. And if the reverse happened, and people approved it, but the court reversed it, you would be screaming that the will of the people should be heard. People are merely self serving hypocrites deep down inside about almost anything in life.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#829 Jul 13, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but do yourself a favor.......DON'T speak about something you know NOTHING about!!!
I believe it fits where ever the owner get's pleasure putting it......lol!!!
By the way, Lesbians aren't angry individuals......they just get tired of asinine comments like some of the ones you make!!!
This really is something you are clueless about and maybe should STFU about it
And you just got done saying they aren't angry. The person who shouts "I'M NOT SHOUTING!!!"
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
......I don't tell you what's pleasurable...or how to enjoy your sexual activities......why do you think it's okay for you to tell the GLBTQI Community what is right or what sex organs are designed for? Frankly, what we do in the privacy of our homes is NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS!!!
Yes, more ALL CAPS. But you're not angry, right? I didn't tell anybody what to do. You keep adding things to my posts because you are an angry bag of emotions. All I explained was why I think it is unnatural. You can do whatever you want and I never said otherwise. I can't tell you how to live your life and I made no such effort.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#830 Jul 13, 2013
dances with weebles wrote:
<quoted text>
i'm not going to 'give' you anything at all.
Well then don't make claims if you are unwilling to substantiate them when asked. And without substantiation, your claimed is to be ignored.

“What Goes Around, Comes Around”

Since: Mar 07

Kansas City, MO.

#831 Jul 13, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but do yourself a favor.......DON'T speak about something you know NOTHING about!!!
I believe it fits where ever the owner get's pleasure putting it......lol!!!
By the way, Lesbians aren't angry individuals......they just get tired of asinine comments like some of the ones you make!!!
This really is something you are clueless about and maybe should STFU about it......I don't tell you what's pleasurable...or how to enjoy your sexual activities......why do you think it's okay for you to tell the GLBTQI Community what is right or what sex organs are designed for? Frankly, what we do in the privacy of our homes is NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS!!!
A nosy body that prob. tries to know what goes on in EVERYONES house.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#832 Jul 13, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
And you just got done saying they aren't angry. The person who shouts "I'M NOT SHOUTING!!!"
<quoted text>
Yes, more ALL CAPS. But you're not angry, right? I didn't tell anybody what to do. You keep adding things to my posts because you are an angry bag of emotions. All I explained was why I think it is unnatural. You can do whatever you want and I never said otherwise. I can't tell you how to live your life and I made no such effort.
Sorry, but not angry.....just making a point.....you don't know me and you can't make me angry.......lol!!!

What is unnatural to you is very natural to Gays and Lesbians.......we don't see what you do as natural........but we also don't go around and tell you what is natural or by natural design either.........whatever works for you is good for you, but whatever works for us, is natural for us:-)

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#833 Jul 13, 2013
Imprtnrd wrote:
<quoted text>A nosy body that prob. tries to know what goes on in EVERYONES house.
Yep, and thinks that just because it's natural for him to be with a woman......that it is natural for ALL men to be with women and that's just a fallacy......lol!!!

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.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 1 hr BOSE 5,993
News Taiwan court legalizes gay marriage in historic... Wed The Wheeze of Trump 5
News New mayor supports young people Wed not all eh 1
News Taiwan to make landmark gay marriage ruling Tue Mitts Gold Plated... 1
News 'He did it to himself': Anthony Weiner faces pr... May 22 overlord 1
News Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) May 21 Truth to Power 31,985
News Church 'rejoices' after decision to offer same-... May 20 Grief Counselor 1
More from around the web