My thoughts...
 

- Lovespell, I respect your opinion. But quite frankly, your fervor and zeal against homosexuality is a little frightening. Do you have something personal against gay people? You post very sketchy research that links homosexuality to inhuman acts as if heterosexual people do not indulge in the same thing. The justification for your belief is eerily similar to that of the people who advocated lynching and eugenics. No, I am not saying you advocate these things. I am saying that your REASONING sounds very similar.

- Do y'all know how long homosexuality has been around? As far as I can tell, human being still populate the earth and we are having no shortage of reproduction.

- I hate it when I advocate something like gay marraige and get labeled "bleeding heart," "radical," (among other less than nice things). To those who are lamenting being called homophobic, guess what? Y'all are some of the same ones who denounce the opposing beliefs and waggle a condescending finger at the non-religious folks.

- Can someone please explain to me how homosexuality is in any way similar to necrophelia or bestiality? Thanks in advance.

- So I guess that 5 people now make up an accurate enough sample size to determine for the ENTIRE gay population whether or not homosexualiy is a choice? Well in that case, my SIX friends who were born gay cancel yours out.

- The reason Wonderful1908 asked to provide a non-Christian reason why gay marraiges should be outlawed is that IDEALLY the law should not be based on religion. So if someone can come up with a good, secular reason why gay marraige is wrong, that'd be great. So far all I have seen are reasons that are STILL based in religion and very questionable research.

- Everyone who believes that homosexuality is a choice is HETEROSEXUAL. Kinda makes you think, huh.

Re: Re: actually...
 

EXACTLY!! Librasould remarked that my ferver was frightening... No whats frightening is this world in 20 years. :eek:

Re: My thoughts...
 

I've pretty much answered alll that you ask here if you read my earlier posts. My purpose is .not to argue or convince you to agree with me...but to say with all my "fervor and zeal" where I stand. If you don't stand for something, you fall for anything. We'll all deal with our own personal "views" down the line..in some way or another.

Re: Re: Re: actually...
 

People were saying the same thing 20 years ago...and 20 years before that...and 20 years before that. We are still here.

Like I said I respect your right to have an opinion, but posting research indicates that you are either trying to sway another's opinion or somehow seeking validation for your own. Either way, your opinion still scares me, just as I am sure mine scares you.

Re: Re: Re: Re: actually...
 

The only thing I fear is God! Someone's opinion could hardly scare, intimidate or put fear into me! I'm too strong for that. I did say that I am scared for the road society is going down.

You're reading into what I'm saying instead of hearing whatI'm saying. I've said several times that we will all have to answer for our own actions. If you think I need validation for how I feel....think again sweetie. :cool:

I would just like to take the time to ride on the coattails of everything that librasoul wrote in the previous post. Therefore I don't have to repeat any of it since it was very well put the first time. Anyhoo, I would like to point out to all the religious fanatics out there that "he who is without sin, cast the first stone". And even if you try that, you might just break your own window. Isn't it true that in Christianity no sin is above the other? So those out there stealing, lying, cheating, etc are in the same boat (or a similar one if you can't stand being in the same space as a homosexual).

I also wanted to point out that putting homosexuality and beastiality (sp?) in the same sentence is an eerie reminder of those "special" white people who would refer to Af Americans as "monkeys" or just "animals" in reference to interracial relationships. Wouldn't that make it a form of beastiality? Just a thought......

Standing up for your beliefs makes you a religious fanatic? :confused: And honestly when you blanketly use "he who is without sin, cast the first stone", you are essentially saying that having a belief that is different from someone else is the same as "judging" that other person. It's not.

I'll be happy to explain the meaning behind "he who is without sin, cast the first stone" for those that want to know more.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: actually...
 

So you think that legalizing gay marraige will bring about the apocalypse?

You are right, we do all have to answer for our own actions. That being said, why are you worried whether or not a homosexual wants to marry? How does that directly affect you?

And all research is is a tool to validate someone's belief (better known as a hypothesis). If no one needed validation for what they believed there would be no research.

The fact is, as UDZeta said, not everyone believes that homosexuality is a sin or an abomination or whatever. Unfortunatley, those that do are preventing people who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together from doing so. That is why there is a difference, and that is why people who hold that belief are seen as oppressive.

I think when someone says "he who is without sin..." they really mean that one sin is not greater than the other in the eyes of the Lord. So therefore if you are engaging in premarital sex, who are you to condemn homosexuality? It is not criticizing your BELIEF, rather the hypocrisy it includes. (Honeykiss, not directed to you personally, I mean "you" in the general sense.)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: actually...
 

I'm not going to argue with you hun... Asking me why I'm worrying about this or that...and how something is going to be directed to me is not only being argumentative...but you're not paying attention to what I've already said NUMEROUS times in earlier posts. Do what you want...God is OUR judge. You can take your complaints, etc to him.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: actually...
 

Oh, I know Librasoul22. Ita all about discussion and not attacks. :)

When Jesus used that statement (when the men were stoning the whore), it was because those men were committing sin iin their own personal lives and were unrepent. (some even with her). It was not because no one should ever be vocal enough to say when something is not right or is wrong.

Therefore "He who is without sin..." is not a blanket statement that should be used to overlook wrong behaviors in others, but a call for us to "discerning" rather than negative or critical.

In a real life example, let's say you were married :D and I find out you are having an affair with someone and I call you on it. It is not wrong nor am I judging you if my motives are out of concern for you (and to see you do the right thing by your marriage).

However, it is wrong if I call you on it simply for selfish reasons such as jealousy (or because I want to see your marriage ruined, or to gossip or spread rumours about you,etc.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ok, back to gay marriages. I still say there should be no federal classification of "married" as it relates to those that are "single". Marriage is a religious institution with a religious foundation. Marriage was not created so that two people could be put on an insurance policy.

By eliminating any federal acknowledgment or distinction, then this discussion will be over. Private companies or hospitals can longer make "spousal requirements". There will abe no need to file for a marriage liscense or go to divorce court. No seperate taxes rates or marriage penalty.

So what's wrong with this solution?:confused: I know t may not be as fun to argue over, but still. :cool:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: actually...
 

Ok, I have to disagree here. I don't believe marriage is a religious institution. So many different cultures and religions use the term marriage to define a union between two people.

Marriage is based on economics and was intended to maintain a stable society. If there was no such thing as marriage people would be running around with anyone with two feet and a heartbeat, children would be uncared for because no one would take responisbility for their offspring. Marriage is an economical union because two people joing their assest together make for more. Why do you think so many culture used and still use doweries?
It's just easier to enter into this kinds of union with someone you love.

Maybe I'm just being cynical. But if marriage was a religious institution people who were not religious would not get married.

I believe in God, but not in organized religion. If supporting the right for homosexuals to enter into a union will condemn me to hell so be it. Far be it for to tell anyone they cannot be together.

Hell, I think we should all be gay. The world would be a lot nicer and more colour coordinated :D

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: actually...
 

Ok, back to gay marriages. I still say there should be no federal classification of "married" as it relates to those that are "single". Marriage is a religious institution with a religious foundation.


Marriage isn't necessarily a relgious institution for everyone. Couples consisting of one man and one woman are legally married daily in court houses with no mention of God anywhere.

The whole idea of marriage was created in the US for economic reasons?

Sure, some people have and still are adding their own "spice" to it (requiring dowries and such) , but it was not used nor created for economic reasons. We may however have turned it that.

I said the IDEA of marriage is religious in nature, not WHERE you get married makes it religious in nature. I can't speak exactly as to what is said during a courthouse wedding since I have only attended one and yes, God was mentioned.

What I don't understand that if some are so determine to have a seperation of church and state, why should we not get rid of the "married" classification? This is something that is specifically mentioned in throughout the Bible and is practiced within Biblical guidelines.