Gay marriage and laws of nature

White Male wrote:

Constitution hey? That must explain why a binding ballot question on this issue was not on the ballot.The costitution is being subverted by homosexuals and their leftwing crackpot supporters.

I personally subverted it myself......

Harrison Davis wrote:

Here's something that is suppressed by the history revisionists. We should all have this as a handout to educate
"[C]ertainly no legislation can be supposed more
wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free,
self-governing commonwealth... than that which seeks
to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family,
as consisting in and springing from the union for life
of one man and one woman in the holy estate of
matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable
and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of that
reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent
progress in social and political improvement."
So stated the United States Supreme Court more than 100 years ago in
Murphy v.
Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15, 45 (1885).

Your keye words for today are, "More than 100 years ago"!!!!

Keith wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks for the perfect example of how gay theology does the twist. Jesus says those things for sure, but you are typical of those who leave out the most important part. Jesus would have said homosexuality is a sin and commanded you to repent, same as with any of us wretched sinners.
You must go to a UCC church

How very noble of you to tell everyone what Jesus "would have said". I believe he would have to you to shove it where the sun don't shine. My statement is as factual as yours.

a-men brother

devons wrote:

<quoted text>
History has proved that the bible has been used against certain people to hold them back. Based on that it's a little difficult to prove that gays are twisting the bible so that Christians can finally give unto Caesar what is Caesar's.
If you have beliefs based on your faith....please, by all means live by them. Just don't try and take away the freedom of others to live by their beliefs as long as it's within the law.

Like I said, I can turn you around....I got the fastest tongue in the east...and the softest bottom side of it in the west....quiet a succulent combo.

BWAC wrote:

<quoted text>
You can't even prove that Jesus ever really existed!!.

OMG BWAC how can you say such things??? You will burn in the fires of eternal hell. The bible was written by God, that is all we need to know. Do not question anything, we will tell you how to think. YOU HAVE NO FREEWILL rEPENT SINNER

fsm
jULY 25 1208

Keith wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks for the perfect example of how gay theology does the twist. Jesus says those things for sure, but you are typical of those who leave out the most important part. Jesus would have said homosexuality is a sin and commanded you to repent, same as with any of us wretched sinners.
You must go to a UCC church

While Jesus MAY have said that, he didn't..
And even IF he had said it,
would he have instructed YOU to judge.?

No my friend..
My reasoning is sound..

devons wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you this adamant about other sinners (based on your belief) getting married? If so where has been your voice over the years?

A PERFECT POINT my friend.

If sineers were NOT allowed to marry..
There would be 0 marriages in this country.

god made vagina...god made penis. they go hand and hand. slip and slide....if you don;t get it, you have issues.

Hannity wrote:

god made vagina...god made ****. they go hand and hand. slip and slide....if you don;t get it, you have issues.

I am not confused on that my friend.
Nor am I confused with how God wants be to treat my fellow man.
Nor am I confused about the importance of ALL of us standing shoulder to shoulder and demanding equality in EVERY law.

You see, I apply the same logic to tax Law.
The same importance to the Constitutional Amendments.
I BELIEVE in our constitution.
"Equal under the Law" means something.

Gays are like a germ

Amenhoptep III wrote:

Gays are like a germ

Alex, I'll take ignorant bigots for 800$

Locke wrote:

The ridiculous political charade of homosexual "marriage" remains exposed as the fraud that it is.
No significant percent of homosexuals has "married" in ANY country that permits the oxymoron.
Homosexuals are NOT the same as other people. They seldom form longterm exclusive
relationships, often completely obsess on perversion, and have much elevated rates of many diseases and social ills. THIS is the reality.
No homosexual "marriage" is recognized by the US Government. We have a democratically established national definition of marriage as solely between one man and one woman.
No law could ever make even one homosexual relationship into a real marriage.

I see that you post was removed and that you decided to repost it verbatim (word for word) using a new name.

I would reassert my position from post #9. I feel no particular need to take up additional space to repeat content which already exists within this thread.

How does allowing homosexual couples the legal rights afforded by marriage affect anyone other than the homosexual couple? The state's involvement in marriage is a legal one and a legal one alone. How does allowing homosexual couples equal protection infringe upon your rights?

psst....boys have a p....girls have a v.

Hannity wrote:

psst....boys have a p....girls have a v.

Yes, and the girl said with one of these I can get as many of those that I want

Sorry, the group seems to need a little humor

FSM wrote:

<quoted text>
Alex, I'll take ignorant bigots for 800$

da da da house

Hannity wrote:

psst....boys have a p....girls have a v.

This is true.

It's also the case that some of those boys and girls are gay.

Nature is wondrously varied.

It's insanity to deny that gay people exist, fall in love, live their lives in loving, committed, moral relationships. I find it astounding that some people think body parts define this discussion.

Peugeot wrote:

The ridiculous political charade of homosexual "marriage" remains exposed as the fraud that it is.
No significant percent of homosexuals has "married" in ANY country that permits the oxymoron.
Homosexuals are NOT the same as other people. They seldom form longterm exclusive
relationships, often completely obsess on perversion, and have much elevated rates of many diseases and social ills. THIS is the reality.
No homosexual "marriage" is recognized by the US Government. We have a democratically established national definition of marriage as solely between one man and one woman.
No law could ever make even one homosexual relationship into a real marriage. It is of course ludicrous to claim that "equal rights" are involved in trying to disenfranchise others on the legal definition of marriage.

Congratulations! You have now learned to change both you screen name and hometown. You however, are still unsuccessful in addressing direct questions or elaborating on a post which you have now made three times, one of which has been withdrawn.

I asked quite clearly,
"How does allowing homosexual couples the legal rights afforded by marriage affect anyone other than the homosexual couple? The state's involvement in marriage is a legal one and a legal one alone. How does allowing homosexual couples equal protection infringe upon your rights?"

You have responded that:
"No law could ever make even one homosexual relationship into a real marriage. It is of course ludicrous to claim that "equal rights" are involved in trying to disenfranchise others on the legal definition of marriage.

Homosexual "marriage" is a complete FRAUD.
Two unequals will NEVER be equal."

Please expound? Feel free to be specific if you are able.

I look forward to your new screen-name, hometown, and hopefully, an original post.

Michael Rachielem needs to follow his own advice.

"So many people today take the Old Testament out of context and they can mistakingly get what they want from it."

He refers to S&G but yet is too ignorant to realize the sin of S&G was inhospitality and had zilch to do with homosexuality unless, of course, one can equate rape with love. He then goes on to quote Matthew 19:4-5 yet is too clueless to read a bit more and comprehend his hypocrisy.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc2.h...

Matthew 19:10-12:

"Jesus' disciples said to him,'If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry,' But he said to them 'Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the dominion of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.' " The New Testament & Psalms: An Inclusive Version.

In this verse, Jesus is quoted as advocating that Christians should not marry. However, he admits that not all Christians can accept this state. God gives only some the ability to remain single. He then talks about 3 types of eunuchs. They appear to be:

1. males who have been born with malformed testicles
2. males who have been surgically castrated. This was often done to harem guards and senior civil servants. Daniel, for example, was a eunuch.
3. males who "have made themselves eunuchs". There have been religious groups whose men have castrated themselves as a sign of their religious commitment. However, most commentators believe that "eunuch" is used here metaphorically, to refer to Christians who have decided to remained single in order to more fully devote themselves to the church's work. Some Christians in later years interpreted this verse literally and castrated themselves as a sign of faith. With the medical skills of those days, this was a life-threatening procedure.

One source interprets the first category of eunuch as referring to homosexuals, rather than to males born without functioning testicles. 2 This source believes that the Bible contradicts itself, with Leviticus, 1 Corinthians and other passages condemning homosexual behavior, while Matthew "just accepts it as a reality." We have not been able to find support for this belief from any academic source.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus '_sexuality

In the Gospel of Matthew 19:3-12 Jesus condemns divorce (though an exception is given in cases of adultery), quoting Genesis 1:27 and 2:24, and explains himself with these words:

Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.
The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.
Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage (or have made themselves eunuchs) because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.(NIV)

Jesus' praise for those who have made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven has, for many centuries, been interpreted by Christian theologians as a metaphor for chastity, since the term "eunuch" normally referred to a castrated man.[1] Some Christians (including, according to a few sources, Origen) went farther than this by interpreting Jesus' words literally and hence physically castrating themselves as an act of devotion.[2] The early Church Father Tertullian, who wrote that Jesus himself lived as a eunuch,[3] likewise encouraged people to adopt this practice.[4]