Originally posted by Bigwhammy

to the Homosexual Agenda Homosexuals have more rights than heterosexual married people. Married heterosexuals can be imprisoned for adultery in some states.

That’s a flaud argument.

They don’t count, they are old laws that are no longer enforced, just like in Arkansas a man can legally beat his wife, but not more than once a month, or in Florida where when having sex, only the missionary positionis legal or in Massachusetts a woman can not be on top in sexual activities or New York state it is actually illegal for a woman to be on the street wearing “body hugging clothing, or in Illinois you may be arrested for vagrancy if you do not have at least one dollar bill on your person.

They are odd crazy laws that are still in place but never (if ever) enforced.

Heterosexuals have many more rights that homosexuals are denied.

Mikey

If those old laws don't count why were homosexuals raising such a ruckus over the great and God given sodomy laws that the heathen left wing radicals dismantled just a few years ago? They sure counted to you then. You want to have your cake and eat it too. The rules just don't apply to you do they son? Well you will meet your maker one day and if the wages of sin is death, Jack Chick says repent before pay day!

Originally posted by redmage
Please don't attempt to speak for God, and/or what he finds acceptable. I spoke with him a little while ago, and he asked me to forgive you because you don't realize that you've been lead astray by the works of men. As such, I forgive you.

Awwww, SNAP! Way to Red Mage it, Red Mage.

tol·er·ance
–noun

The very interesting thing about the difference between "Tolerance" and "Tolerate" is the vernacular usage of the latter; generally it is a negative connotation of holding ones nose while at the same time being somewhat disgusted or containing ones displeasure with another's presence.

It brings to mind for me False Southern Hospitality, where often people are smiles and cheerfulness while in your presence, but nothing but derision and backbiting when you are not.

Likewise, speaking ill of your fellow man (Even if he is a sinner) whether in their presence or out speaks volumes as to a person's character.

Lucid; it shouldn't be hard to surmise that BigWhammy believes that Gays shouldn't be able to marry, as that is the Evangelist stance on the matter.

BigWhammy; You're wriggling around direct answers a lot, just because Married people in some states can be arrested for Adultery while Homosexual couples can't by no means insinuates that somehow Homosexuals have it better than married people.

We could all have one huge discussion about legislating morality all the while as we argue about what MEASURING stick to use to consider that morality. I argue that where it concerns relationships, there should be no moral authority on the matter and that law should not dictate or seek to condone any particular family structure over another based on religion.

For claiming to be Christ's followers, I sense a deep and abiding wish for certain types of people to go away from the world. Sinners, hedonists, polygamists and sorts that do not mirror the abstinence until marriage, one person for life point of view.

Originally posted by Jack Thomas Chick
If those old laws don't count why were homosexuals raising such a ruckus over the great and God given sodomy laws...

Again... men wrote, men edited, and men published those laws. There is nothing proving that they were the work of God, or that God had anything to do with them.

Please, let go of your hatred and anger. Those emotions have no place in heaven, nor will they help you get there. Find a positive path before pay day, son! I forgive you, and, if you make peace, God just might too.

[edit on 4/16/08 by redmage]

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
Lucid; it shouldn't be hard to surmise that BigWhammy believes that Gays shouldn't be able to marry, as that is the Evangelist stance on the matter.

Yeah

After he said "fairness across the board" I became interested on how he felt the Law should embrace that fairness.

I suppose he is suggesting ultimately that the USA Laws should directly reflect his Evangelical beliefs. Actually considering all thats been said, that is pretty obvious at this point, you're right.

He wants Church and State to become One entity.

Perhaps the real threat to this Nation is indeed here afterall.

There's no such thing as Gay marriage. It's like an oxymoron. Why do you just make up absurd canards?

I answered directly go back and read it again. Anything outside of man and wife make it illegal across the board. Hetero and Homo. That's the way God intended it to be. "One Nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all". See liberty doesn't mean your not under God anymore!

Bottom line is you can choose not to act on your "feelings". And problem solved. If you engage in homosexual activity and keep it behind closed doors nobody will bother you. So you can. You just want everyone to endorse it. Not going to happen. If everyone could do what they felt like then we'd all be like a bunch of kindergarteners. You just want all play. Sorry it doesn't work that way.




[edit on 4/16/2008 by Bigwhammy]

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
There's no such thing as Gay marriage. It's like an oxymoron. Why do you just make up absurd canards?

Well, there is in Canada. So who's making up ducks, then? Get a worldview and stop trying to run other's lives based upon a book written by people who thought the world was flat.

Oh, and that Chick guy with the door that swings both ways? He should read the thread so that he knows we established (about 40 pages back)that the Old Testament is no longer relevent to this conversation. Otherwise Leviticus is fair game again to make him sound stupid. And we are all above that now, right?

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
You just want everyone to endorse it

Many people in this thread have pointed out to your thick-head that there are many legitimate reasons for wanting a legal marriage, and it has nothing to do with sex.

Perhaps once you're married yourself you will finally understand this.

The only reason my partner and I had a civil ceremony,was for legal resaons. If one of us died,the other one would be left with a huge inheritence tax bill on the house. Now we're a legally recognised couple,that won't happen.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon

That "UNDER GOD" bit was put into the pledge of Allegiance (Like a lot of other "God" stuff) near the end of the 1800's, beginning of the 1900's.

Actually that phrase is much newer than you suggest. It was inserted into the Pledge of Allegiance by then President Eisenhower in 1954. This was duing the 'red scare' when we were 'trying to save our nation from godless communists'

When debating, it helps if you quote facts correctly......

[edit on 16-4-2008 by pavlovsdog]

Originally posted by pavlovsdog
Actually that phrase is much newer than you suggest. It was inserted into the Pledge of Allegiance by then President Eisenhower in 1954. This was duing the 'red scare' when we were 'trying to save our nation from godless communists'

Aah, then I was mistaken. That it was added much later, within spitting distance if you would (Considering there's a goodly portion of people still alive from that era), only re-emphasizes that particular point.

When debating, it helps if you quote facts correctly......

[edit on 16-4-2008 by pavlovsdog]

No need to be condescending. I was mistaken on the matter, there was quite a bit of the same done at the turn of the century, and was "In God We Trust" added to our money at that time?

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
You're RIGHT! There IS no such thing as Gay Marriage! So let's make such a thing legal, and even create a definition for it so that it is no longer an oxymoron. I mean, despite it being contradictory, a third of the United States seems to think it's a decent idea.

Actually, it's over 50% now. I think it's up to about 60% on the high polls, and around 50% on the low ones.