An oxymoron if there ever was one because…

it is not a marriage…

changing the definition won’t change that fact

Similarly, Civil Unions undermine marriage, because one has to let heterosexuals do it, which means they might not take the full marriage plunge.

This argument helplessly cribbed from Jonathon Rauch.

He is incredibly pro-marriage and pro-gay marriage, and La Shawn Barber, per usual, you haven’t thought this through.

No idea what you’re referring to. Some context would be helpful. – Admin

Regards.

John

If it makes you feel to good to think so than you go ahead and do it because you haven’t got any proof of the accuracy of your position.

Sure you can claim that millions of people agree with you, but none of that means squat. Millions of people used to believe in slavery and that the earth was flat.

I am from a more progressive and enlightened fold. I don’t care if a man loves another man or a woman loves a woman.

The most critical component of my assessment of their character is based upon their actions.

Those who are dead in sin can not see the truth, can’t discern the truth and may very well have consciences so seared that they are HARDENED (not a good place to be). The only thing you (or any other Christian can do) is pray for their salvation. That God will open their eyes, that there will be someone who shares the truth of the Gospel with them.

That everyone will not believe is already written and a fact of life. They will have to answer for that when they are face to face with the Lord.

Just pray for them.

And now I must move one…
Have a blessed day in the Lord (for everyday is the Lord’s day)

OK, sarcasm off. Please read my earlier posts Jack.

Those who are commissioned by God to tell of the abomination of homosexuality have more understanding about the true nature of God than the liberal. In fact your liberal treatment of the bestial, the gay, Devil-courting abominations proves this fact to be true. That, and your sly betrayal of a ‘transgendered’ God as ‘he/she’.

Think we didn’t notice that? Try again.

I haven’t any fear, not one iota. You haven’t any more understanding of G-d and his/her wishes than any one else.

I am very comfortable in my religious beliefs and haven’t any need to run around trying to force others because of some arrogant need to make the world full of mindless clones.

There are multiple paths to G-d.

He obviously worships the devil and supports abominations.

Either the Lord or the Devil…

You are right about one thing…it’s your choice

John,

That is the height of idiocy and patently false. What you suggest is that we subject human beings to torture. You suggest that we abuse them, that mentally demean them for something that is most definitely outside of their control.

You should be ashamed of yourself. Your position is one that should routinely be dismissed. It is just shameful.

Suek,

Apologies for the overly long comment. I was trying to address the points you raised and lack the requisite skill for precis. To be fair though, you didn’t return my civility or address any main points I raised in response to your original rebuttal, yet I will read that article you quoted.

Mary: .

All gender confusion in the ‘homosexual’ or ‘bisexual’ person can be solved by the sinner being rigorously exposed to the fact that they are, quite literally, an abomination. Being ‘gay’ is like being an alcoholic. It is also a sinful psychological disorder that can be cured. Then, with the help of religious conversion they can make the first long steps back to recovery.

This method has been proven to work much better than shock therapy or even front lobal leukotomy, both of which have produced peculiar results, in some cases actually worse than the original ‘homosexual’ state. I tend to oppose the death sentence of non-pedophile homosexuals or bisexuals/transvestites. Muslims have that bit wrong. It is usually wrong to kill gays, as it is usually wrong to kill drunks.
Regards,

John

You are born homosexual. Just as you are born heterosexial. It’s not a choice. You could use Prager’s argument to make a case for gay marrriage. It’s marriage–committment, fidelity, wealthbuilding, stability–that gays want, not “hedonistic sexual practices.”

I agree with Jack: “The lack of “approved gay marriages” hasn’t stopped homosexual behavior no more than a ban would. I see nothing inherently wrong in encouraging people who love each to engage in a monogamous relationship.”

Perhaps I could answer your very long comment point by point, but Charles Krauthammer can say things much better than I. He makes 3 points:

1)Changing the definition of marriage to include homosexuals is a radical social change.
2)Amending the Constitution because of judicial activism is detrimental to the Constitution.
3)The solution is to make various changes in the judiciary – some by SC decisions, some by action of the voters.
Good article. Even though I am at least partially in favor of the amendment because of the federal implications, he makes good points. As usual.

http://tinyurl.com/gz7xl

I will return the kindness and attempt to answer your points:

“If such statements are the only ones you see on this forum, then I agree, you are disturbed.”

In this I’m afraid that you are mistaken. I didn’t suggest that I only saw those statements. I was in fact addressing what I perceive to be the common and vocal/illogical statements regarding homosexuality to which I referred. I’m sorry if this was in any way misleading. However I do realise that you were attempting to be insulting. I try not to converse in that fashion, please try and return the respect that I offer by sticking to the debate? Thankyou.

Essentially what is being broadly proposed is that same-sex loving/sexual relationships are a ‘choice’, a ‘belief’? Then it follows that no-one can ‘really’ be ‘authentic’ homosexual?

This argument is heard most commonly from either ‘haters’ or faith-followers (religious people) who, ironically can not by their own definition be ‘authentic’? Their way of life is also (arguably) a ‘choice’, a ‘belief.’ The irony is unfortunately lost on the accusers.

I would flatly state that a (nominal) religious person had a choice in their lifestyle any more than a (nominal) gay person. It would be hopelessly false to paint a brush so broadly.

It strikes me that some Christians/Muslims etc deem homosexuality to be an ‘abomination’ and will pointedly reference *everything* from lack of science, over into theology, and back again in order to disprove or stigmatize the reality of homosexuality. This process is flagrantly (transparently) directed towards putting ‘guilt’ upon the homosexual. It’s that – “Guilty (read ’sinful’) Because Cannot Be Theologically Proved Innocent” – thing that has punished individuals down the centuries for being an affront to a current theism.

“Legality and morality are not substitutible.”

Not quite sure what you mean by that, sorry. I didn’t make that claim.

“There are those who object to homosexuality on the basis of morality, and there are those who object to the legalization of homosexual “marriage” as being a logically impossible effort, in the same way that it is logically impossible, for example, to have a square circle.
I see comments here that address both aspects.”

So do I. I wasn’t addressing those comments. Again, apologies if I wasn’t clear on that point.

You say you consider the “treatment” of homosexuals here to be “immoral”….by what standards?

By my standards. I would never be so arrogant to believe I speak for others, unless they are very, very close/well known to me.

‘Moral’ absolutes of course exist within fundamentalist religions or totalitarian governments. I do not subscribe to that. My moral coda are not for discussion here, but they are in many ways similar to many religious teachings across the world, and in some ways different.

I recognize the societal benefits of certain moral coda, they make sense for a harmonic existence, without which we would risk becoming desperate survivalists in a constant state of war.

We all have our own subtley or widely different ‘moral’ standards; i.e that which is deemed acceptable/inacceptable. In as near to an ideal world as we try to make, democratic processes ensure that the most commonly accepted moral coda have a place in law. Murderers and abusers = bad. Etc.

I do not subscribe to the belief of ‘original sin. I believe punishing a homosexual by *whatever* means to be wholly wrong if they are punished because they are homosexual. Sharia Law, for instance, is wholly IMMORAL to me. Yet the same thing is of course wholly MORAL to the Islam fundamentalist who subscribes to Sharia.

It is grossly unacceptable to me that people stigmatize, stereotype and punish people on account of either their race or gender/orientation. Of course it is only a matter of succesfully criminalizing a nominal ‘group’ for the punishment of said group to be accepted.

The marriage issue is an odd one as marriage is surely partly religious, partly legal, and very much personal? Adult individual’s relationships with each other and their belief systems, their deities, whatever? I understand that theists cannot (by default) accept authority of differing churches or religions as that is the square peg and round hole you speak of. Differing churches have differing views. Differing religions have differing views.

I understand a Church or Mosque refusing to marry gay people if their ‘holy book’ denied it, of course. I don’t understand the same church or mosque banning other churches from doing it.

Marriage per secular law? Absolute freedom of adults to marry their chosen can be the only way. Anything else would be bringing the will of a majority OR a minority to bear upon what MUST be an intensely personal freedom. As for taxes and marriage? Scrap them!

I hope the above respectfully answered your main questions regarding my first post. Thanks again for your response. Some acknowledgement is due from me to LaShawn for ‘allowing’ such a varied discourse on an ostensibly religious/conservative forum.

Regards,

John