Are gays "born gay"?

uscitizen said:
HUH ?

Marriage is neither one.

It is a contract between two people.

check the law on this.
Click to expand...
I just did in an earlier post. Secular marriage is treated like a business partnership, a contract between two people given a priveledge by the State.
 
I've never comprehended the whole negative argument about nature/nurture. I just can't understand why people care so much about what other people like that they have to interfere with it and try to prove it is one or the other of these things.

So long as there is no victim of their activity then it is their own danged business and not yours. And no, their marriage cannot effect yours. The only one that can effect the "sanctity" of your marriage is you and/or your spouse. That argument is wasted here.

And as far as I understand it everybody has sinned, according to that religion. What makes this sin so special? Another thing I remember about that religion is the "Judge Not" portion. It isn't your job to ever tell another that their activity/action is a sin, that's the job of something larger than you.
 
Damocles said:
I've never comprehended the whole negative argument about nature/nurture. I just can't understand why people care so much about what other people like that they have to interfere with it and try to prove it is one or the other of these things.

So long as there is no victim of their activity then it is their own danged business and not yours. And no, their marriage cannot effect yours. The only one that can effect the "sanctity" of your marriage is you and/or your spouse. That argument is wasted here.

And as far as I understand it everybody has sinned, according to that religion. What makes this sin so special? Another thing I remember about that religion is the "Judge Not" portion. It isn't your job to ever tell another that their activity/action is a sin, that's the job of something larger than you.
Click to expand...
1. I’ve never suggested that what two willing adults do to each other should be interfered with.
2. As I said earlier: “most Americans agree that gay marriage will have a negative impact on traditional marriage; a smaller minority disagree. I am in the former, and you are in the latter.” I also gave my reasoning earlier and see no need to repeat it unless there is a specific question to it.
3. Good question, again broadening the issue. Homosexuality is discussed as a sin here. This example presents it as perhaps the most egregious act in history, since it was responsible for Ham’s founding of the enemies of Israel. Some believe that the conflict has never ceased, and exists today as the Palestinian-Israeli conflict that seems to have no possible end.
 
Southern Man said:
1. I’ve never suggested that what two willing adults do to each other should be interfered with.
2. As I said earlier: “most Americans agree that gay marriage will have a negative impact on traditional marriage; a smaller minority disagree. I am in the former, and you are in the latter.” I also gave my reasoning earlier and see no need to repeat it unless there is a specific question to it.
3. Good question, again broadening the issue. Homosexuality is discussed as a sin here. This example presents it as perhaps the most egregious act in history, since it was responsible for Ham’s founding of the enemies of Israel. Some believe that the conflict has never ceased, and exists today as the Palestinian-Israeli conflict that seems to have no possible end.
Click to expand...
No, you just suggested that because of some "sin" that they may or may not commit they can't have a contract between them solidifying that activity. Your religion is getting in the way of their right to the Pursuit of Happiness and stinking up their right to Liberty and all because you think what other people do in marriage somehow can "desanctify" your marriage. Only you and your wife can desanctify your marriage.

And I want a link to a current poll with your "majority think".
 
Southern Man said:
1. I’ve never suggested that what two willing adults do to each other should be interfered with.
2. As I said earlier: http://www.newsweek.com/id/101079?GT1=10755“most Americans agree that gay marriage will have a negative impact on traditional marriage ; a smaller minority disagree. I am in the former, and you are in the latter.” I also gave my reasoning earlier and see no need to repeat it unless there is a specific question to it.
3. Good question, again broadening the issue. Homosexuality is discussed as a sin here. This example presents it as perhaps the most egregious act in history, since it was responsible for Ham’s founding of the enemies of Israel. Some believe that the conflict has never ceased, and exists today as the Palestinian-Israeli conflict that seems to have no possible end.
Click to expand...



Heres the problem , it doenst matter what they think. They have to prove damage and not just think it.

We allow people who have murdered their wives and children to remarry. Dont you think someone who has done that is worse than two women who want to marry and have never done anything but work and pay taxes?

This is an injustice and will change.

Take a poll of people under 30.
 
Damocles said:
No, you just suggested that because of some "sin" that they may or may not commit they can't have a contract between them solidifying that activity. Your religion is getting in the way of their right to the Pursuit of Happiness and stinking up their right to Liberty and all because you think what other people do in marriage somehow can "desanctify" your marriage. Only you and your wife can desanctify your marriage.

And I want a link to a current poll with your "majority think".
Click to expand...

1. It's not just religion, but 5000 years of recorded history and tradition. Throughout that time many variations have been attempted, but one man- one woman has survived and presented itself as the best model for civilization.

If two gays want to live togeher, they can go to a lawyer and draw up a relationship contract. Why make 99% of society change just to satisfy 1%? It doesn't make sense.

2.
Gay-marriage bans bulldozed to victory in all 11 states that voted on the measure: Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah.
Click to expand...
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/initiative.htm
 
Desh said:
....

Take a poll of people under 30.
Click to expand...
Take your own poll TruthMatters. You have failed in every debate with me that you have attempted. Assume your role as mindless cheerleader for the Liberal view and stop using up board space.
yay2.gif
 
Southern Man said:
Take your own poll TruthMatters. You have failed in every debate with me that you have attempted. Assume your role as mindless cheerleader for the Liberal view and stop using up board space.
yay2.gif
Click to expand...

Wow you cant refute the logic so you resort to just "claiming" you won?

To chicken shit to even tell me who you are on the other site too.

Your thoughts dont count as evidence of harm do they?
 
Southern Man said:
1. It's not just religion, but 5000 years of recorded history and tradition. Throughout that time many variations have been attempted, but one man- one woman has survived and presented itself as the best model for civilization.

If two gays want to live togeher, they can go to a lawyer and draw up a relationship contract. Why make 99% of society change just to satisfy 1%? It doesn't make sense.

2. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/initiative.htm
Click to expand...
Your link does not prove that they voted it down because they thought it would harm their marriage. It does not, in fact, have any motive behind the votes listed.
 
Watermark said:
I personally just don't think that the government should be involved in the business of marriage.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

I would be happy as hell to have my "marriage" called a civil union and leave the "marriages" to the religious people who want them called that.

Then they could get "married " in the church and then go get their civil union under the law.

I think any two consenting adults should be allowed to enter into a civil union for any damn reason they want to.

Two elderly sisters should be allowed to do a civil union to tie their finances together in their late years.

Any two people can inexpensively enter a civil union as they wish.

The elderly nieghbor man and get a civil union with the nieghbor who has become his psuedo family member for the last ten years so he can leave his money to her kids.

Any two people should be allowed access to this inexpensive leagal agreement.
 
Desh said:
Wow you cant refute the logic so you resort to just "claiming" you won?

To chicken shit to even tell me who you are on the other site too.

Your thoughts dont count as evidence of harm do they?
Click to expand...
Show us your bouncing tube top, babay!
 
Damocles said:
Your link does not prove that they voted it down because they thought it would harm their marriage. It does not, in fact, have any motive behind the votes listed.
Click to expand...
Straw Man. The issue here is the harm that it would do to the institution of marriage as the foundation for a civilized society. That has been a consistent message from proponents of gay marriage bans. When put to a vote, Americans overwhelmingly vote for these bans. What other likely conclusion could be drawn from that?
 
Southern Man said:
Straw Man. The issue here is the harm that it would do to the institution of marriage as the foundation for a civilized society. That has been a consistent message from proponents of gay marriage bans. When put to a vote, Americans overwhelmingly vote for these bans. What other likely conclusion could be drawn from that?
Click to expand...
It does not follow that all who voted, or even the majority share the reason that you did had you voted. That is an actual logical fallacy, unlike the one that you don't understand and misapply to my post.

For instance I would have voted against it as I don't think the government should be involved in "marriage" not because I think the sanctity of my marriage would inexplicably be damaged by somebody else's marriage.
 
Southern Man said:
I just did in an earlier post. Secular marriage is treated like a business partnership, a contract between two people given a priveledge by the State.
Click to expand...

I think secular marriage is all the only form of marriage recognized by our govt. after all the multiple wives religious marriages are illegal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top