APP - Homosexuality Now, Pedophilia Next

[Damocles]

Give me a quote!!!

And that aint necessarly my book!

Another:

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (New International Version)

9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Another:

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (New International Version)

9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Damo, you will note that in that sentence there are two instances using a verb and an adjective....it mentions "male prostitutes" and "homosexual offenders"....to say that simply being a homosexual is a sin also requires that you conclude simply being a male is a sin, true?.....

by the way....for honesty's sake you ought to include verse 11 as well...

" 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

 

[DamnYankee]

"Marriage" is a religious institution, secular unions are a simple contract, the attempt to make it fit into some round hole that you dug doesn't change that. All capable adults are allowed to enter into personal contracts, and that is as far as the government should take it.

The government shouldn't be in the business of regulating contracts in order to keep you from sinning. All I want to do is pull government power back into the box originally intended for it by the founders. Religion is not its purview, and protecting your religion's institutions is also not within its power.

Except its not just about religion. Family is the building block of society, and marriage is the basis of a family.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

your entire post is a slippery slope argument....

do you even know what the term means? please tell me what you think it means....

It means just as it sounds, once you begin allowing one thing, it leads to something worse, and that leads to something even worse, and so on. That is not my argument. I have articulated clearly, what the constitution says and how it is designed to work, would force us to extend the same consideration to all sexual behaviors, if we establish sexual behavior as a criteria for marriage. It's not a slippery slope, it is the real legal ramifications and consequences of an action, based on what is presently in our constitution. More appropriately defined, my argument is "cause and effect" not the slippery slope.

allowing two people who are engaged in legal behavior to marry or even if they are not engaged in any behavior but simply want to marry is NOT going to to devolve into allowing people to marry animals....

I never claimed anything would "devolve into" something, but allowing marriage to be officially defined by the US government on the basis of sexual preference, is going to allow people who want to marry animals, the legitimate platform to push for such a thing, and you will not be able to refuse them, if you have established marriage based on sexual behavior. Do you believe there are no people in America who would want to marry their animals? Are you that naive? If we can agree, there are any number of sexual (deviant) behaviors out there, you must accept that any redefinition of marriage based on sexual behavior, gives them a legitimate complaint for equal constitutional protection under the law.

give me a break dixie, you have to consent. your agrument is without merit, absolutely no historical facts to back it up, in fact just the opposite as i provided you and SM with a report on gay marriage in denmark and europe...

And as I pointed out, Denmark and Europe do not have a US Constitution which guarantees equal protection under the law. They can make any rule or law they wish, and not have to worry about the constitutionality of it.

your fears are completely unfounded and based solely on the slippery slope

It's not my fears, it is my knowledge and understanding of the constitution. I don't fear this will happen, I know it will happen, because it will be the consequence of redefining marriage based on sexual behavior. Once you codify that into law, you have established a precedent, you have set the table, you have defined the criteria in which marriage can be allowed, and it is based on sexual behavior. Therefore, you can't turn around and claim that certain sexual behaviors society may not be comfortable with, are not privy to the same exact marital rights as homosexuals, you just can't do it under the constitution.

 

[DamnYankee]

I support a measure to remove state and federal government from recognizing any "marriage" of any individuals in America. In place of the government recognizing marriages, which have an inherent foundational religious history and tradition, the "state" would only be involved in issuance of "civil union contracts." The specifications would be simple, any two individuals of contractual age, can obtain a "civil union contract" without regard for their gender, sexuality, religious belief, relationship, or personal reasons for the contract. It would be available to gay couples, traditional married couples, moms and sons, brothers and sisters, BFFS, roommates, monks, nuns, midgets, whatever! Any tax, insurance, property, health, or other issue which is currently available to 'married couples' will now be available to civil union partners. From the governmental perspective, this removes them from any moral, religious, or cultural endorsement of any kind, and allows people the freedom to utilize this contract to fit their personal circumstance. At the same time, it protects the sanctity of the religious institution of traditional marriage, churches can decide for themselves (freedom & liberty) whether to marry gay couples, and the homosexuals can acquire every single benefit of a current 'traditional married couple', with zero inequality, all the way down the line.

What part of that do you interpret as me wanting to decide what other adults can or can not do? Please explain???

I'd rather see the government stop using the tax system to try and micro-manage human behavior. We need to have a standard for marriage but the Feds are not, and should not be, permitted to do so under the Constitution; it should therefore be left up to the States. If folks want to have civil unions and such then so be it, but it should be for long-term, committed relationships, with financial penalties for early withdrawal, just like marriage.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

it is the slippery slope and as i've repeatedly and repeatedly told you, we do not need to extend same benefits for ILLEGAL behavior, thus you are using the slippery slope

further, we allow homocide, but not all homicides are allowed/legal

your argument falls on its face

 

[DamnYankee]

it is the slippery slope and as i've repeatedly and repeatedly told you, we do not need to extend same benefits for ILLEGAL behavior, thus you are using the slippery slope

further, we allow homocide, but not all homicides are allowed/legal

your argument falls on its face

Yurt, you can do better than this. You're making very little sense.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Damo, you will note that in that sentence there are two instances using a verb and an adjective....it mentions "male prostitutes" and "homosexual offenders"....to say that simply being a homosexual is a sin also requires that you conclude simply being a male is a sin, true?.....
by the way....for honesty's sake you ought to include verse 11 as well...

" 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

did you read the rest of the line? what you saying makes absolutely zero sense....it didn't just say male, it said male prostitutes....

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Yurt, you can do better than this. You're making very little sense.

it makes perfect sense....

dixie claims if we allow gay marriage we will also have to allow other deviant marriages, and he has used bestiality as an example. this is not true, EP does not apply to illegal behavior. we would have to legalize those behavior, which is in fact the slippery slope argument.

i used homicide to show him that even though homocide is justified in one instance, we have not extended it to all instances. thus showing once again his fears of the slippery slope are completely unfounded.....

 

[Damocles]

Damo, you will note that in that sentence there are two instances using a verb and an adjective....it mentions "male prostitutes" and "homosexual offenders"....to say that simply being a homosexual is a sin also requires that you conclude simply being a male is a sin, true?.....

by the way....for honesty's sake you ought to include verse 11 as well...

" 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

Being homosexual isn't a sin, it is acting on the urges that is sinful.

At least according to my understanding.

Verse 11 does nothing to change the fact that acting on homosexual urges would be "sinful", basically that next verse says that Ted Haggard's class on heterosexuality would work if you converted to Christianity.

 

[Damocles]

Except its not just about religion. Family is the building block of society, and marriage is the basis of a family.

Only within the structure of your religious doctrine. Many families are built on other foundations than your dogma. It is not the government's responsibility to judge your religious views the "winning" views on which to base secular laws such as personal contracts.

None of the powers granted to any level of government gives them the power to regulate contracts agreeable to your religious doctrine or your religion's definition of family.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

it makes perfect sense....

dixie claims if we allow gay marriage we will also have to allow other deviant marriages, and he has used bestiality as an example. this is not true, EP does not apply to illegal behavior. we would have to legalize those behavior, which is in fact the slippery slope argument.

i used homicide to show him that even though homocide is justified in one instance, we have not extended it to all instances. thus showing once again his fears of the slippery slope are completely unfounded.....

No, I gave you an example of a sexual behavior that is not illegal at the present time, as far as I know. The point is not the legality of the behavior anyway, because once was a time, homosexuality was also illegal behavior, and in many places around the world, still is. Things can easily be made legal, that isn't a problem.

Analogies with homicide are irrelevant, and have nothing to do with this debate. No one group is demanding they be given the right to kill people based on their sexual behavior. Unless you want to look at the issue of abortions, where we have established in law, that it is acceptable to terminate human life, and the extension of that, which was probably thought to be totally outrageous when we adopted abortion, of terminating life when we feel it is of little or no value, like Terri Schiavo. That is more of a 'slippery slope' example, and as I articulately pointed out, my argument is not based on what might happen, it is based on constitutional law, and what WILL happen.


What I am saying is not unfounded, and you haven't demonstrated where I am wrong. The Constitution clearly says that we must give each citizen equal protection under the law, we simply can't apply laws to one group and deny them to others. If we base marriage on sexual behavior, then it becomes the criteria from that point forward, and we must, by the constitution, extend the same consideration to other sexual behaviors. Some of those are currently NOT illegal, and would certainly have an "equal protection" case, should they desire to bring it.... and they certainly would, if they could.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

i've given you both law and examples. if you want to remain ignorant, go for it dixie.

EP does not apply to illegal behavior. to argue that we would have to make it legal because of EP is 1. false, 2. the slippery slope....

and again, you are the one who keeps bringing up sexual behavior and falsely claiming it is others doing so. if you are going to continue to be dishonest and claim you are not the first one to bring it up and not the one who continually keeps talking about allowing this sexually deviant behavior will lead to allow other sexually behavior, then you can pound sand.

 

[Don Quixote]

It isn't the government's job to make sure you don't sin.

be careful, there are legal laws and cultural laws and it is safer to violate a legal law than a cultural law

the government's job is keeping public safety everything else is frosting or dross

 

[WinterBorn]

Except its not just about religion. Family is the building block of society, and marriage is the basis of a family.

Gay marriage can provide a family unit that will be as stable for society as the straight marriage.

 

[Don Quixote]

Romans 1: 18 - 27

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

too true and one of the sources of evil in the bible

 

[PostmodernProphet]

did you read the rest of the line? what you saying makes absolutely zero sense....it didn't just say male, it said male prostitutes....

????...I think my point was quite clear....if you are going to truncate "homosexual offenders" and say it is merely the fact they were homosexuals that was the sin, then you also need to truncate "male prostitutes" and say that it is merely the fact they were male that was the sin.....

the key to understanding the meaning of the text is understanding what the word 'offenders' is referring to.......

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

????...I think my point was quite clear....if you are going to truncate "homosexual offenders" and say it is merely the fact they were homosexuals that was the sin, then you also need to truncate "male prostitutes" and say that it is merely the fact they were male that was the sin.....

the key to understanding the meaning of the text is understanding what the word 'offenders' is referring to.......

it was talking solely about male prostitutes....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Being homosexual isn't a sin, it is acting on the urges that is sinful.

At least according to my understanding.

then you owe Jarod an apology, you were arguing with him when he said homosexuality isn't a sin....now you acknowledge it is only acting on it which is the sin.....he was saying exactly the same thing you just said....

Verse 11 does nothing to change the fact that acting on homosexual urges would be "sinful", basically that next verse says that Ted Haggard's class on heterosexuality would work if you converted to Christianity.

you couldn't say that unless you contradicted yourself and claimed BEING a homosexual was sinful....otherwise, being forgiven of your sin wouldn't make you a heterosexual now would it?.......

you're playing loose with the logic....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

it was talking solely about male prostitutes....

then it was talking solely about homosexual offenders.....you can't escape the logic of that....