My conservative perspective on gay rights

AssHatZombie said:
Yurt, if you're really pro gay, you need to reject the abrahamic faiths outright. Sorry. It's the way it is.
Click to expand...
Ya the abrahamic faiths, those things that say no pork eating, no working on sunday, no talking to a women on her period? I think we may have tossed those out the window a while back.
 
Disillusioned said:
Ya the abrahamic faiths, those things that say no pork eating, no working on sunday, no talking to a women on her period? I think we may have tossed those out the window a while back.
Click to expand...

New testament did that.

Matthew 5
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Ephesians 2
15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.

Hebrews 8
13By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

Romans 10
4Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

Romans 7
6But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

2 Corinthians 3
13We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away. 14But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away.Galatians 3

13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."

23Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ[h] that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.
 
Supreme Being Yurt said:
unbelievable. why in the world are you SPAMMING this thread with your stupid black vote issue? you do this on USMB and now here. seriously, what is wrong with you?
Click to expand...

dude she's been this way for almost 9 years. jesus christ, I have known some of you for nearly a decade.
 
when i was 18, my specific support was behind civil unions. - But not "marriage." I was one of those that defended the very WORD marriage, even though it's a word that has constantly evolved for thousands of years.

Also, my belief was rooted in an "I don't care mindset".. rather ambivalent, not an issue that kept me awake at night.

But then something happened.

I grew up. And realized how retarded not allowing gay marriage is. And it morphed from me being marginally for civil unions, to realizing that those that don't support the happiness of others - happiness that has zero effect on society at large (and many could argue improve society as a whole with respects to being more tolerant to others), are proles. Also I think many republicans against gay marriage are just jealous that they can't be in a gay marriage themselves. So they want to ban it for everyone. Studies have shown the more homophobic one is, the more they experience homosexual attraction. That's a fact.
 
dixon76710 said:
New testament did that.

Matthew 5
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Ephesians 2
15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.

Hebrews 8
13By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

Romans 10
4Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

Romans 7
6But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

2 Corinthians 3
13We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away. 14But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away.Galatians 3

13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."

23Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ[h] that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.
Click to expand...

Asshat did say abrahamic laws, not christian traditions. However I do find it interesting that all the books from which you're quoting are not directly from Jesus but instead interpretations by his disciples, save for the one from Mathew in which Christ says that he is not discarding traditional jewish law but instead adding to it. Interesting huh?
 
Disillusioned said:
Asshat did say abrahamic laws, not christian traditions. However I do find it interesting that all the books from which you're quoting are not directly from Jesus but instead interpretations by his disciples, save for the one from Mathew in which Christ says that he is not discarding traditional jewish law but instead adding to it. Interesting huh?
Click to expand...

Not near as interesting as you taking the word "fulfill" to mean "add to" in order to manufacture a contradiction that you think makes a point. And YOU said "abrahamic faiths"
 
Last edited:
Supreme Being Yurt said:
my good lord, you're more ignorant than i thought. i figured you would not provide a cite to back up your claim. so i have to educate you:
Click to expand...

Actually, I provided four of them. Thats why you are no reduced to pretending they dont exist, in order to avoid addressing them. Typical.

We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0316_0535_ZO.html
Click to expand...


Under a federal constitutional analysis, for a fundamental right to exist it
must be “objectively, ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition’ . . . and
‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,’ such that ‘neither liberty nor justice
would exist if they were sacrificed.’”
Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage to be
a fundamental right expressly link marriage to fundamental rights of procreation,
childbirth, abortion, and child-rearing.
Under a federal constitutional analysis, for a fundamental right to exist it
must be “objectively, ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition’ . . . and
‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,’ such that ‘neither liberty nor justice
would exist if they were sacrificed.’”
Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage to be
a fundamental right expressly link marriage to fundamental rights of procreation,
childbirth, abortion, and child-rearing…
heterosexual couples are the only couples who can produce biological offspring of the couple
http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/content/pdf/759341opn.pdf
Click to expand...


The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis...

"Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners contend. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for restructuring it by judicial legislation
http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/Walton/bakrvnel.htm
Click to expand...

It is not surprising that the decision to marry has been placed on the same level of importance as decisions relating to procreation, childbirth, child rearing, and family relationships. . . .

t would make little sense to recognize a right of privacy with respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to the decision to enter the relationship that is the foundation of the family in our society.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=434&invol=374
Click to expand...
 
dixon76710 said:
Yeah, just like heterosexual sex gave them a baby. The idea is to get the children with their biological parents. NOT with one of their biological parents and their gay lover
Click to expand...

To force people into situations where they try to pretend they are hetero, create families, then crush them when they finally have the courage to admit what they are? I don't get how that makes it any better. The homosexual father/mother will still be living with their lover, the child may live with them, and there really isn't much you have to say about it.
 
Damocles said:
To force people into situations where they try to pretend they are hetero, create families, then crush them when they finally have the courage to admit what they are? I don't get how that makes it any better. The homosexual father/mother will still be living with their lover, the child may live with them, and there really isn't much you have to say about it.
Click to expand...

Marriage is a voluntary endeavor. No one is forcing anything on anybody.
 
dixon76710 said:
Marriage is a voluntary endeavor. No one is forcing anything on anybody.
Click to expand...

Which doesn't change that your "solution" does nothing at all to promote or create what you said it was designed to promote. In fact, it creates a scenario where quite the opposite happens very often. Ignoring what happens right before your eyes doesn't make for a good argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top