Can Anyone Explain 'Why gay marriage?'

[Lon]

I think our only disagreement is on the label, Lon. Do no harm should always be the goal. Then it comes down to disagreeing on what constitutes harm.

True. Because the CDC lists the life-quality and life expectancy low, it is probably wise to counsel celibacy and living out agape in the church.
The rest of the world will have to figure out how best to counsel nonChristians.

 

[Arthur Brain]

when i see a poster start a sentence like this, it's usually a good bet they're retarded

Well, you'd make as crap a gambler as you do a poster then.

Sad case.

:sigh:

 

[glassjester]

But if it's consensual sex in private between adults, it cannot and must not be considered a crime , and no one should ever be criminally prosecuted for this .

glassjester: like incest?

or polygamy

or adultery

Well, Horn, are you for marriage equality for incest and polygamy or not?

 

[glassjester]

I accept UK law.

How about 2 husbands and 2 wives? Or 1 husband and 10 wives? Or 10 husbands and 10 wives?

Is there a limit?

Then you believe non-incestuous couples with heritable disorders should be denied marriage as well - right?

Obviously I do not believe that homosexual couples produce children. Why the condescension?

Well, Eider?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Is there anyone among all you gay marriage supporters who can explain clearly , 'Why the modern cry for gay marriage?.' How can gay marriage be equal with traditional understanding of marriage?

Lets face the blunt facts that anal intercourse is obviously not natural.

The call for gay marriage and the many who support the concept only demonstrate how far our modern world has fallen into depravity!

Since you ran away from your other supposedly anti homosexual marriage thread, let's continue what I was saying in this thread:

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
I noticed that you don't seem concerned about other institutions that homosexuals have permeated: the family (via adoption), the military, youth mentor groups, the Church, Education, civil government, etc.
Either it's a behavior that should be shunned by society or given full acceptance, marriage included.
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...Other-Unions&p=5036375&viewfull=1#post5036375

 

[MrDante]

glassjester: like incest?

or miscegenation

 

[eider]

Well, Eider?

Ha ha!
You wandering devious creep.........
The Thread is all about 'Gay Marriage', and... presumably because your tenets have been shot through-an'-through you've decided to introduce all manner of ideas, no doubt to throw the debate in other directions, to set up 'interference' and in crazy attempts to gain some foothold back, long lost now.

Gay marriage has nothing to do with polyamorous marriage, polygamous marriage, polygamous consorts, harems, incestous relationships (incestuous marriage is illegal mostly everywhere) and any other stuff you try to dig up.


Now..... The Scottish Episcopal Church has voted to recognise and support gay marriage, so that'll show you how Christianity is beginning to move away from your dubious version of it.

And, on the side, the UK has just elevated a very very far left politician into striking distance of UK power.

There..... how d'ya feel on this bright shining day? :rotfl:

 

[glassjester]

or miscegenation

Are you implying that mixed race couples have the same moral status as incestuous couples?

 

[glassjester]

Ha ha!
You wandering devious creep.........

Why resort to condescension and name-calling? Strange.
Does it help you to become more of the person you wish to be?

I hope not.

The Thread is all about 'Gay Marriage', and... presumably because your tenets have been shot through-an'-through you've decided to introduce all manner of ideas, no doubt to throw the debate in other directions, to set up 'interference' and in crazy attempts to gain some foothold back, long lost now.

No, sir. It's not interference. I want you to see where your so-called "marriage equality" is bound to lead.

Gay marriage has nothing to do with polyamorous marriage, polygamous marriage, polygamous consorts, harems, incestous relationships (incestuous marriage is illegal mostly everywhere) and any other stuff you try to dig up.

Then you should be able to easily defend homosexual marriage while providing a legal argument against polygamy and incest. Right?


So how about it?

What is the limit to the number of spouses that can be married? And on what basis do you deny marriage equality to marriages of greater number?

On what basis do you deny marriage equality to incestuous couple?

Now..... The Scottish Episcopal Church has voted to recognise and support gay marriage, so that'll show you how Christianity is beginning to move away from your dubious version of it.

I don't care what the Scottish Episcopal Church votes for. Morality is not up for vote.

And, on the side, the UK has just elevated a very very far left politician into striking distance of UK power.

So?

There..... how d'ya feel on this bright shining day? :rotfl:

I am very well. How are you? :e4e:

 

[eider]

Why resort to condescension and name-calling? Strange.
Does it help you to become more of the person you wish to be?

Simple observation.

No, sir. It's not interference. I want you to see where your so-called "marriage equality" is bound to lead.

Rubbish. What you are attempting to do is intermingle one tenet with others, all different, and that is devious....... and you wander about the subject matter, looking for loopholes..... sneaky, creeping. Get it?

Then you should be able to easily defend homosexual marriage while providing a legal argument against polygamy and incest. Right?

Separate Thread! Separate subject matter!
Stick to Gay Marriage please!

So how about it?

What is the limit to the number of spouses that can be married? And on what basis do you deny marriage equality to marriages of greater number?

On what basis do you deny marriage equality to incestuous couple?

Separate Thread!
But to end your deviation, what State do you live in?
What is the legislation re the above in your State?
Romans 13:1 !!!

I don't care what the Scottish Episcopal Church votes for. Morality is not up for vote.

So you believe that the Scottish Episcopal Church is immoral, without morals, evil?

So?

Yeah...... and so?

I am very well. How are you? :e4e:

One of the happiest folks in the World just now, sitting by my beautiful wife.
And I would wish for such happiness to be extended as far and as wide as possible.

 

[glassjester]

Simple observation.

There was no intent to insult? Really?

Rubbish. What you are attempting to do is intermingle one tenet with others, all different, and that is devious....... and you wander about the subject matter, looking for loopholes..... sneaky, creeping. Get it?

How can I be "sneaking" if I am openly explaining my intent?

Separate Thread! Separate subject matter!
Stick to Gay Marriage please!


Separate Thread!
But to end your deviation, what State do you live in?
What is the legislation re the above in your State?
Romans 13:1 !!!

No. It belongs in this thread. Think clearly about this, Eider. Your rationale for the legalization of homosexual marriage is what, exactly?

Now once you've put forth a reasonable justification for the re-definition of marriage, you absolutely must account for the possible consequences of your new definition. So what is your definition of marriage? What is your rationale for homosexual marriage?

And let's carefully examine what consequences arise.

So you believe that the Scottish Episcopal Church is immoral, without morals, evil?

I believe their vote is meaningless to me. They have no authority to declare moral dogma.

One of the happiest folks in the World just now, sitting by my beautiful wife.
And I would wish for such happiness to be extended as far and as wide as possible.

Amen, brother! I am glad to hear it!

 

[eider]

There was no intent to insult? Really?

How can I be "sneaking" if I am openly explaining my intent?

Your words caused the definitions, as explained.

No. It belongs in this thread. Think clearly about this, Eider. Your rationale for the legalization of homosexual marriage is what, exactly?

My country's legislation is a good rationale to hold to.
We vote for the governments that we wish for, and we obey the laws that are written.
'click'...... Gay Marriage is the wish of the majority and upheld here.
Easy.

Now once you've put forth a reasonable justification for the re-definition of marriage, you absolutely must account for the possible consequences of your new definition. So what is your definition of marriage? What is your rationale for homosexual marriage?

Already explained.

And let's carefully examine what consequences arise.

Gays can marry and be happy together.

I believe their vote is meaningless to me. They have no authority to declare moral dogma.

But you do.... surely?
Quote your moral justification from the bible...... go on.

Amen, brother! I am glad to hear it!

Thankyou for those kind words. I just wish for Gays to have the same right to marry and be happy as I did/have.

 

[MrDante]

Ha ha!
You wandering devious creep.........
The Thread is all about 'Gay Marriage', and... presumably because your tenets have been shot through-an'-through you've decided to introduce all manner of ideas, no doubt to throw the debate in other directions, to set up 'interference' and in crazy attempts to gain some foothold back, long lost now.

You've hit that nail firmly on the head

 

[MrDante]

Are you implying that mixed race couples have the same moral status as incestuous couples?

you've spent the whole thread going on about legality and now you present this duplicitous statement. I guess you did this because "your tenets have been shot through-an'-through you've decided to introduce all manner of ideas, no doubt to throw the debate in other directions, to set up 'interference' and in crazy attempts to gain some foothold back, long lost now."

 

[glassjester]

you've spent the whole thread going on about legality and now you present this duplicitous statement.

You said, "Like miscegeny?"

So I won't assume anything, man. You can explain, if you wish. How are homosexuality, incest, and polygamy like miscegeny?

I guess you did this because "your tenets have been shot through-an'-through

Which "tenets," exactly?

 

[glassjester]

Your words caused the definitions, as explained.

Okay - if you say so...

My country's legislation is a good rationale to hold to.
We vote for the governments that we wish for, and we obey the laws that are written.
'click'...... Gay Marriage is the wish of the majority and upheld here.
Easy.

Ok. That's just kicking the can down the road, though. The question is "why gay marriage?" and your answer is "the majority wants it."

Well the obvious follow-up question is... Why does the majority want it?
And... If the majority did not want it, would you want it to be illegal?

Or do you only honor the will of the majority when it's in your favor?

But you do.... surely?

Definitely not!

Thankyou for those kind words. I just wish for Gays to have the same right to marry and be happy as I did/have.

But incestuous couples should not have that right... right?

 

[MrDante]

You said, "Like miscegeny?"

and you put out the moral misdirection.

So I won't assume anything, man. You can explain, if you wish. How are homosexuality, incest, and polygamy like miscegeny?

You've been asked dozens of times just how homosexuality is comparable to incest. So you first.

 

[MrDante]

Well the obvious follow-up question is... Why does the majority want it?

maybe because the majority believes in the concepts of justice and equality.

 

[eider]

..............Ok. That's just kicking the can down the road, though. The question is "why gay marriage?" and your answer is "the majority wants it."

The voters don't have to fill in any boxes on their voting paper to justify their vote.
Their X is all that's required.

Well the obvious follow-up question is... Why does the majority want it?
And... If the majority did not want it, would you want it to be illegal?

Ah...... right...... now, I can't answer for any others, but I support Gay Marriage because the risks associated with Homosexuality-in-Marriage are reduced to a mere nothing by comparison with ancient times. As you know, Moses' people needed to multiply for strength, and only heterosexual marriage could accomplish that. And ANY promiscuity of ANY kind was OUTLAWED, and therefore adultery, fornication, homosexuality were written down. Rape of a virgin 'back in the day' carried a compulsory marriage order for exactly the same reasoning.... everybody should only have one partner to prevent from transmitted sickness which could wipe out the whole people, just as shellfish-poison-paralysis could in an afternoon. But many extreme Christians don't understand the foundation and reasoning behind the 613 only looking for spiritual nonsense within. Today many Christians would pay no attention to the shellfish law thinking it to be an innocuous inclusion, whilst magnifying the Gay law into something HUGELY EVIL. Daft dangerous minsets imo.

One TOL member named a prominent Christian who vigorously promotes anti-gay action, yet that man once had girlfriends (fornication) and diivorces (adultery) which he somehow minimises as 'alright', I suppose. I'm not suggesting that personally you minimise fornication or adultery as less serious than homosexuality, but many Christians seem to. But where I see hypocrisy from anti-gay Christians I just laugh.

Or do you only honor the will of the majority when it's in your favor?

Romans 13:1
Regardless of our personal opinions, we must obey the laws of the lands that we live in. But we can campaign for change.

But incestuous couples should not have that right... right?

The health and sickness risks are the same today fopr incestuous marriage as 'back in the day'.
That's why some countries insist on blood-tests before marriage.

 

[BoyStan]

Ha ha!
You wandering devious creep.........
The Thread is all about 'Gay Marriage', and... presumably because your tenets have been shot through-an'-through you've decided to introduce all manner of ideas, no doubt to throw the debate in other directions, to set up 'interference' and in crazy attempts to gain some foothold back, long lost now.

Gay marriage has nothing to do with polyamorous marriage, polygamous marriage, polygamous consorts, harems, incestous relationships (incestuous marriage is illegal mostly everywhere) and any other stuff you try to dig up.


Now..... The Scottish Episcopal Church has voted to recognise and support gay marriage, so that'll show you how Christianity is beginning to move away from your dubious version of it.

And, on the side, the UK has just elevated a very very far left politician into striking distance of UK power.

There..... how d'ya feel on this bright shining day? :rotfl:

Church and Christianity are both moving away from adherence and obedience to scripture and the faith once for all delivered to the saints. So it is no surprise when both support gay marriage.