Best Posts in Thread: Gay Rights

Well, if homosexuality etc. are ways your brain is wired, of course homosexuals would know they were so. But if you're talking about general masses, then... probably. I feel like it's how being a prostitute would be (read the rest, don't jump to conclusions xD): if you tell someone you are a prostitute, a lot of people would be like... uh... ew... that's disgusting/why would you even like that job/etc (I guess?). Similar to how if you told someone back then "I like to sleep with (insert same sex)", then I'd think they would also be repulsed because they thought it was unnatural. If this were the case, they would keep their mouths shut about it, and maybe not realize it was a brain-wiring thing.
And going along with the same analogy, a lot of people would be unfamiliar with what a prostitute was (in normal cases, young children). If they didn't have an official diagnosis back then, then a lot of people would just find the act/urge unnatural if someone told them about it, but didn't really /know/ about it.

Ramblings. Hopefully a bit of that made sense.

 

No, religion was made to put morals into humans back in the first set of days. In today's world, it is being abused heavily. There are no parts to the bible having hate on gays. It is just people abusing the name "religion" to try to make it morally correct. I am also Atheist...if you were wondering.

 

Incorrect. Regardless of who performs the ceremony, be it a Priest or Judge, is a civil affair. The Priest in itself doesn't marry you, he just acts as an officiant, in much the same way a Judge would. It's the city clerk's office that actually marries you, or rather the act of purchasing the Marriage Certificate, filling it out, and returning it marries you.

Aside from that, the only quantifiable benefits marriage brings is civil related, such as insurance, debt, taxes and fines.

I mean this argument in itself is silly, we should not be arguing over the definition of "Marriage", we should embrace the definition of "Civil Union", because where this all counts is in matters of civil affairs. This is the basic reason they are fighting for marriage, not solely just to be recognized, but to gain all the benefits a normal married couple gain. This is also the main reason people are arguing against it, under the swallow guise of religious conservatism. They are actually just greedy.

 

The thing is that there's over 1,000 (1,138 to be exact) federal benefits offered by the U.S. government for married couples. If marriage was only a "religious thing", then that would mean all married couples would not be given rights such as social security, joint taxes, immigration benefits, employee benefits, health care coverage, adoption/child custody rights, etc.

It's much too late to keep marriage as solely a religious institution. It's forever intertwined with our government, and we must learn to structure marriage in our government as a civil union– not as a religious rite.

Now, this doesn't mean that marriage is redundant in a religious setting. Churches and other religious institutions regulate their marriages in a way that is entirely unaffected by marriage laws regulated by the government. Examples of such separate laws: a rabbi does not have to conduct a marriage between a Jew and non-Jew, the Catholic church will not recognize a divorce or second marriage, the Mormon church will recognize polyamorous marriages in the state of Utah, and many more. It's true that marriage started out as a religious rite, but today's society no longer requires a religious basis for marriage. The government, however, does not oblige by these laws! You can get a divorce, but you can't be in a polyamorous marriage. There's many religions in the United States, and making our civil marriage laws based on religion is not only unconstitutional; it will damage the partnerships of couples that wish to seek the same federal benefits of marriage.

If you're in a heterosexual marriage and were stripped of all these federal benefits, then how would you feel?

 

I'm really hoping this is a joke.

Really really hoping you aren't one of those seriously insane people.

 

To begin with, I'm supportive of gay rights/marriage. I just wanted to explain that the "love thy neighbor" quote was translated to English, so it didn't carry its full Greek meaning. The love that you are referring to is agape love, meaning the love that God feels for all of the people on the earth. People are supposed to strive to love one another as God loves us. Eros is sexual love, philia is love between friends, and storge is love between family members. I don't mean to poke holes in your argument, but I felt like mentioning something that I noticed.

 

It's hard to take you seriously when you say we should follow Russia. Because of that, I honestly think you are a troll.

 

Not all gay guys will be attracted to you just as not all women are attracted to you.

 

Not really a necro, it was posted on just last week.

Anyways, what does everyone think about Michael Sam and the dallas Cowboys? I hear conservative groups are protesting them because he's gay...

It really makes me wonder; why didn't they protest the NFL when they signed in a murderer. The victim is still dead, yet, there was ZERO Christian outrage. But by god, the NFL signs in a man in a committed relationship with his boyfriend and they go CRAZY.

 

I don't like how the gay rights topic is something that is still being discussed.
And if your going to be deciding if people can be married then your arguments shouldn't be because of religion or because you think its disgusting.

 

I'm sorry but can you keep all your tumblr copy paste jobs onto one post because you've spammed up the last few pages with these

 

First read Matthew 5:17 (KJV). Jesus says: "Think not that I am come to destroy law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." Also read Matthew 5:31-32(KJV). Here it states:

31 "It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:

32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."

With all due respect, Jesus said:"I am not come to destroy the law." he does not want to break the law, he want to fulfill. Also, it does not say anything about how you should "start chucking stones at the woman (that is divorced)"

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 18, 2014, Original Post Date: Jun 18, 2014 ---

Also, read Lev. 18:22, Lev. 20:13, 1st Cor. 9:10, Rom. 1:26-28. Leviticus 18:22 says:"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 18, 2014 ---

Skaros, even though i do not agree with this, I respect it VERY much; Judging by what the bible says i believe that homosexuality is very wrong. Just because I don't agree with your view it doesn't mean you are a bad person, because you could say the same to me... We're both sinners, we have done wrong before; I respect this post/opinion just as much as I respect mine...

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 18, 2014 ---

I do not want people to think that I discriminate against gays, I just believe that it is a sin, and i do not stand for it; I believe that gays sin just as I sin; I cannot stress this enough: WE ARE ALL SINNERS, and I'm not saying that sinners can't do great things; Abraham Lincoln was a sinner, I believe he was one of the greatest leaders of America. Once again, Hate the sin, love the sinner; hate homosexuality, respect the gay for their opinion (in a godly manner).

 

Personally, I see no issues with the right of marriage for two men or two women. Unfortunately, the whole Bible thing comes into play, which it shouldn't. People of the Christian faith study the New Testament, where there is not a single thing written about homosexuality, so what's the fuss about? No matter what, people are people. It's not like homosexuality didn't exist thousands of years ago.

 

I have to respectfully disagree with that.

However, I will say you should not assume a certain group of people are almost all associate with a political party. Yes, it is a fact that LGBT people tend to be more liberal. I myself would not wish to vote republican until opposition to gay rights is taken off their platform. This doesn't mean I'm against republicans as a whole. There are some that I think would be a viable candidate for presidency. However, I also sure as hell would not vote for someone against my rights. It seems as if, like Erebus said, you're only against people who disagree with you. This is not the mindset you should have when dealing with individual issues. Jump out of the whole political party circle and think of this solely based on your own beliefs.

 

The US was set up to be a democracy, not a theocracy. To quote the Treaty of Tripoli, a treaty the US signed in 1797, "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion". So I don't know what "values" this country has that it would be destroying.

 

I think (as a Christian) that gay marriage is not morally right and is not natural, but it should be legal under the law, because the law cannot discriminate between morally right and harmful to people, which gay marriage is not

 

Arguments against same-sex marriage based off the Bible. Here is my response.

 

I personally believe that gay marriage should only be legal in the state, but allowed only in churches that give the "okay" for it. I believe in a strict separation of church in state, but unlike some people, I believe it's not a 1 way rule. Churches should not be forced to host a same-sex marriage, the same way churches should not force people to invalidate same-sex marriage licenses.

As far as civil unions go, it's better than nothing. The mentality that people are beginning to have is "all or nothing", which is why some things never get done in this country. We must be open to compromise if the full deal is not going to happen. If the United States was going to constitutionally ban same-sex marriage, but give all same-sex couples equal rights and simply not call it a "marriage", I'd be fine with that. If the United States was going to constitutionally legalize same-sex marriage, then that's better! But it seems as if civil unions have better luck opening the door to same-sex marriages as a whole than trying to push same-sex marriage right away. In Indiana a few months ago, they tried to constitutionally ban gay marriage. However, the bill was rejected because it also wanted to ban civil unions. Once the banning of civil unions was removed, then the bill passed in the first house. (I think the bill was first voted on in their house of representatives).

 

RuSiaN_PeDoBeaR"Well you don't have the will to reproduce normally"
I now declare this national forum ignore rusian_pedobear day!

--- Double Post Merged, May 23, 2014, Original Post Date: May 23, 2014 ---

One more gif that I have to edit first to remove some language that would get me forum banned is coming in a few minutes.