Define Christianity as Hate - The New Homosexual Agenda

Originally posted by mr3dboot
reply to post by Believer101

 

I'm not equating any of it actually. My point, which you appear to be proving quite well, is that gay marriage selects a small segment of the American population who demand that their "civil right" is to marry. Polygamists have suffered persecution for years over this but you don't care about their "civil rights" do you?


Say a person wishes to marry a horse. A sick and twisted individual no doubt, but if one group get's to enforce a new "civil right", why not that person?

Pedophilia is yet another. Sick, yes. Disgusting? Yes. Would I kill someone like this for messing with my kids? Without losing a moments sleep. Yet they claim they were "born this way" just as gays, so here we are, two groups of society, both claiming they have no choice but to be that way, but only one group gets to have a "civil right"?

See, here is my problem with this. You want to force this nation to give you something because in the privacy of your home you want to engage sexually with another of the same sex. As consenting adults, do as you choose, but your bedroom practices do not equal a civil right my friend. Next this you know and bdsm people will demand a whip and ball marriage as a civil right.

How is allowing two consenting adults to marry the same as allowing someone to marry an inanimate object/animal/child? Please, tell me how they are equal, then I'll answer your questions.

Originally posted by troubleshooter
Technically 'to marry' even scientifically means to combine dissimilar elements...
...so combining two of the same gender can't really be referred to as 'marriage'.

That is from the Mormon writer, Joseph W. Delli Gatti, so it is very suspect.
Would he claim all of those poly-marriages of the Old Testament were invalid?? I doubt it.

Find me another '''scientific'' definition of Marriage to hang your hat on,, this one holds no weight.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


I myself am not a polygamist so I can't speak to how loving it is for the women. Just making a point.

reply to post by Believer101


How are the private bedroom moments between two adults suddenly a civil right?

“There is the fallacy in your argument. You wish to give only a small segment of society a civil right while refusing to offer/give that exact same civil right to a polygamists or a pedophile or even someone wanting to marry a horse. You can not define a civil right as pertaining only to your small segment and ignore the rest. Now who is bigoted?”
mr3dboot
LOL! I love sarcasm! Pretending to be in your opponent's camp and writing nonsense.Or are you serious? Please take a basic logic course.
O.K. Sure I agree gays should not be allowed to marry a horse etc. Or are you saying that if one is for accepting gay marriage then one has no values? That if one is accepting of gay marriage one is in favor of rape (pedophilia) ! I’m sorry, that is an idiot’s argument and also very sick and offensive.



“Mr Wittgenstein, you make your own assumptions.
I made no assumption. Feed your own prerequisitions without me.
Embrace the 'little logic and 'critical thinking' by which you appear to irascibly define and deduce me.
My apparent silliness has brought you thus far.”
Lucius Driftwood
O.K. You are now saying that one can be for gay marriage and still support an en.wikipedia.org... .
Then why on earth did you post, “Or if I can somehow prove my naiive 13 year old Pakistani virgin wife who I never met is prepared to marry a 35 year old businessman in Seattle because her parents and my parents say so and arranged it, yes?”
Did that post have a point?

Originally posted by mr3dboot
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

There is the fallacy in your argument. You wish to give only a small segment of society a civil right while refusing to offer/give that exact same civil right to a polygamists or a pedophile or even someone wanting to marry a horse.
You can not define a civil right as pertaining only to your small segment and ignore the rest. Now who is bigoted?

It is quite obviously that you are being outwardly obtuse and continuing to engage in logical fallacy. These tactics are old and tired.

Now who is bigoted? Its still you.

But please, do tell what civil rights I am "defining" only to a small segment. Again, if you can get a horse to willingly marry you, have at it. But dont think it is anywhere near the same thing as love between two people.

Furthermore, you are being dishonest in your continued assertion that it does not take consent from TWO people to get married. ALL of your fallacies are based on the idea of forced marriage, which is a whole other topic.

reply to post by apushforenlightment


You don't half talk some crap, if I don't understand it, i am not meant to? Please, give it a rest. That passage has all to do with being hospitable and kind towards others, to ensure others are not suffering and to treating strangers as family, and absolutely NOTHING to do with sexuality

I will say again, come back when you can point to any verse where Jesus mentions homosexuality is a sin, in fact just any verse where he mentions homosexuality at all, the fact is for all your bible pumping you cannot and never will be able too because he never said any such thing, ergo Jesus did not have a problem with homosexuality,

Hardly surprising though is it, considering he ran around with a group of 12 guys and one woman hanging on (Who was a prostitute according to most church doctrine, and Jesus didn't have any issues with her either) you are like every other bible fanatic here, trying to twist things to make them fir your twisted beliefs, and then bitch and whine when others don't want to join you in your fantasy world

Originally posted by Lucius Driftwood

Nope, because we have laws in this country to protect the safety of children. A child cannot legally enter into a contract.

reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

And you are harkening back to the same issue Annee made. Is this about US, or about Christianity as hate (all over the world)?

Well, considering that the question this statement was in response to SPECIFICALLY referenced Seattle, which is, last I checked, in the US, I'd say my statement holds true.

Nice attempt to derail though.

Originally posted by troubleshooter
Technically 'to marry' even scientifically means to combine dissimilar elements...
...so combining two of the same gender can't really be referred to as 'marriage'.

Theres a difference between scientific definition and socio-definition.

you all really need some basic education.

reply to post by troubleshooter


Ah you were being serious.

It's not relevant. 'Marriage' in this case is not synonymous with that definition. It's a different definition of the same word. It's not exactly uncommon for words to have many definitions. We have English words that are used colloquially but then have differing definitions when used in Law as well..

This is rather silly. Too silly for me to entertain.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen23

Originally posted by troubleshooter
Technically 'to marry' even scientifically means to combine dissimilar elements...
...so combining two of the same gender can't really be referred to as 'marriage'.

That is from the Mormon writer, Joseph W. Delli Gatti, so it is very suspect.
Would he claim all of those poly-marriages of the Old Testament were invalid?? I doubt it.

Find me another '''scientific'' definition of Marriage to hang your hat on,, this one holds no weight.

These lame arguments get so tiring.

Legal Marriage is a contract to protect the rights of people and property involved. That is all it is.

What that contract entails - - differs by cultures - laws - etc.

Each person defines there own personal marriage. Some do it for money - politics - necessity - convenience - - and yes even love and religious belief.

Seriously - - the mail order brides of the Gold Rush days did it for Love?

Originally posted by Lucius Driftwood

And you are still engaging in fallacy. Abuse of children is in no way equivalent to two consenting adults. I know you want to try every asinine case you can come up with to prove your point, but you are failing miserably.

reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

No, you don't know, but effort on your part.
The enlightended ancient greeks were very fond of pederasty. Is this just a case of moral relativism?
I'm sure you can look that up for youself if you dare having such a title on your search engine.

So you are arguing that abuse of children is equivalent to homosexuality? If not your statement is irrelevant to what I said.

reply to post by wittgenstein


Just proving a point. Bestiality=sick in my book, pedophilia even worse. However these are sexual choices by two groups of society. (both of which I would ban forever if given a chance). Gay sex is also a choice. Say there born that way? Pedo's claim the same.

The point is, a relationship and sexual activity between two adults of the same sex is a private matter and not a civil right. Gays however wish to force their sexual choices upon the rest of America and choose to ignore all of the legitimate reasons as to why this is not now nor ever should be a civil right.

If this status is given, mark my words, the darkest sexual deviants will line up also demanding that their sexual choices also be given equal status.

Originally posted by mr3dboot
reply to post by Believer101

 

How are the private bedroom moments between two adults suddenly a civil right?

So then in your opinion the issue of interracial marriage was not related to civil rights?

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
We really are going through the propaganda playbook here. Homosexuality is in no way on par with pedophelia, or bestiality, or marrying an inanimate object. THERE IS NO CORRELATION between them.

Yup, there's correlation. They all result in the misuse of the toolkit.

And again, I have to wonder, why is it that we think marriage is only about sex? Why are we ignoring the LOVE factor?

You mean that "ring" on the woman's "finger" doesn't mean she can only allow one fella to enter now?

I thought marriage was a "bondage" that restricted sex.Why else do men have "bachelor parties" just before their wedding? Would it be ok to throw that party after the wedding instead?

Its as much of a "RIGHT" as it is for heteros to get married. Let's think about this. One group wishes simply to be able to marry. The other wishes to stop this, at all costs, based solely on their own beliefs.

It is understandable, from a certain viewpoint. After all, people generally want things they cannot have.

I think this is why God told Adam and Eave "not to eat the fruit" in the middle of the garden. He knew they would disobey him. The very thing they were denied, that is what they wanted the most. Same here, gays only want to get married because it is something denied to them. In truth, they can't get married, because they don't form a couple, 1 male + 1 female, but they would be satisfied by corrupting the language and "calling" their union a "marriage." That's the closest they'll ever get anyway. So, that's what they want. Next, they'll want to deny Heterosexual couples the right to bear children, to gain full equality. Everyone will be required to adopt one of the test tube kids produced in the lab. They are not going to stop at a simple "marriage" label. Equality, is the goal.

Who is "Forcing" their belief on whom?

Because "language" is a commonly shared resource among humans, you simply can't change the semantics of words in the language without "forcing" your beliefs on those who use the current meanings. Changing the meaning of the word "marriage", destroys the old meaning that has held up for thousands of years, and is revered by those in society who believe in the old ways.

Originally posted by mr3dboot
reply to post by wittgenstein

 

Just proving a point. Bestiality=sick in my book, pedophilia even worse. However these are sexual choices by two groups of society. (both of which I would ban forever if given a chance). Gay sex is also a choice. Say there born that way? Pedo's claim the same.

The point is, a relationship and sexual activity between two adults of the same sex is a private matter and not a civil right. Gays however wish to force their sexual choices upon the rest of America and choose to ignore all of the legitimate reasons as to why this is not now nor ever should be a civil right.

If this status is given, mark my words, the darkest sexual deviants will line up also demanding that their sexual choices also be given equal status.

I still am at a loss that some people think marriage has only to do with sex. Perhaps people need to get educated on that topic, before they can handle such a topic as gay marriage.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by Lucius Driftwood

Nope, because we have laws in this country to protect the safety of children. A child cannot legally enter into a contract.

reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

And you are harkening back to the same issue Annee made. Is this about US, or about Christianity as hate (all over the world)?

Well, considering that the question this statement was in response to SPECIFICALLY referenced Seattle, which is, last I checked, in the US, I'd say my statement holds true.

Nice attempt to derail though.

I don't discuss marriage in foreign countries.

Why would I discuss legalities I don't know anything about?

Plus - - - America is a secular country. Religious control is losing its grip.

And they are screaming like Hell.

Christians in American don't understand the difference between Persecution and Losing Control.

Originally posted by Agoyahtah

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
We really are going through the propaganda playbook here. Homosexuality is in no way on par with pedophelia, or bestiality, or marrying an inanimate object. THERE IS NO CORRELATION between them.

Yup, there's correlation. They all result in the misuse of the toolkit.

And again, I have to wonder, why is it that we think marriage is only about sex? Why are we ignoring the LOVE factor?

You mean that "ring" on the woman's "finger" doesn't mean she can only allow one fella to enter now?

I thought marriage was a "bondage" that restricted sex.Why else do men have "bachelor parties" just before their wedding? Would it be ok to throw that party after the wedding instead?

Its as much of a "RIGHT" as it is for heteros to get married. Let's think about this. One group wishes simply to be able to marry. The other wishes to stop this, at all costs, based solely on their own beliefs.

It is understandable, from a certain viewpoint. After all, people generally want things they cannot have.

I think this is why God told Adam and Eave "not to eat the fruit" in the middle of the garden. He knew they would disobey him. The very thing they were denied, that is what they wanted the most. Same here, gays only want to get married because it is something denied to them. In truth, they can't get married, because they don't form a couple, 1 male + 1 female, but they would be satisfied by corrupting the language and "calling" their union a "marriage." That's the closest they'll ever get anyway. So, that's what they want. Next, they'll want to deny Heterosexual couples the right to bear children, to gain full equality. Everyone will be required to adopt one of the test tube kids produced in the lab. They are not going to stop at a simple "marriage" label. Equality, is the goal.

Who is "Forcing" their belief on whom?

Because "language" is a commonly shared resource among humans, you simply can't change the semantics of words in the language without "forcing" your beliefs on those who use the current meanings. Changing the meaning of the word "marriage", destroys the old meaning that has held up for thousands of years, and is revered by those in society who believe in the old ways.

1)No, there isnt, no matter how many stretches you all make to try and say there is.

2)This is just drivel. Nothing but drivel. I cant even come up with the words to respond to such a stupid statement.

3)So, you want to FORCE your view on homosexuals, but its not forcing a belief. They want simply to be free to marry, and that is forcing something on others? Man, can I spend a weekend in the world you live in? Sounds like a crazy place.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by mr3dboot
reply to post by wittgenstein

 

Just proving a point. Bestiality=sick in my book, pedophilia even worse. However these are sexual choices by two groups of society. (both of which I would ban forever if given a chance). Gay sex is also a choice. Say there born that way? Pedo's claim the same.

The point is, a relationship and sexual activity between two adults of the same sex is a private matter and not a civil right. Gays however wish to force their sexual choices upon the rest of America and choose to ignore all of the legitimate reasons as to why this is not now nor ever should be a civil right.

If this status is given, mark my words, the darkest sexual deviants will line up also demanding that their sexual choices also be given equal status.

I still am at a loss that some people think marriage has only to do with sex. Perhaps people need to get educated on that topic, before they can handle such a topic as gay marriage.

Fine, so it's not about sex. Great, so let's given 'em marriage but make the sexual activity illegal, punishable by say 10 years in a federal pen. Bet you the tune changes then.

reply to post by CynicalDrivel

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel
reply to post by kimar

 

Well, he may not have spelled it out, but it's not like he shied away from the conversation of Sodom.

From Chirst:

Matthew 10:15

"Truly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city.

Matthew 11:23-24

23 "And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You will descend to Hades; for if the miracles had occurred in Sodom which occurred in you, it would have remained to this day. 24 "Nevertheless I say to you that it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for you."

Luke 10:12

12 "I say to you, it will be more tolerable in that day for Sodom than for that city.

Luke 17:26-29

26 "And just as it happened in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: 27 they were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying, they were being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. 28 "It was the same as happened in the days of Lot: they were eating, they were drinking, they were buying, they were selling, they were planting, they were building; 29 but on the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all.

Now, I've been clear, in the past, that the main issue in of Sodom wasn't homosexuality--homosexuality was merely the tool that they used to piss God off, but to state that Christ didn't even mention the stuff is to ignore what actually went on in Sodom, and the fact that Christ consistently used Sodom as a comparative tool--something that the Apostles followed Christ in--explaining in more detail.

Here's the verses explaining the "sins" of Sodom:

Ezekiel 16:49-50
King James Version (KJV)

49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.
50 And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.

Perhaps that's the reason why Jesus hasn't mentioned homosexuality as a sin of Sodom?

The city being destroyed has nothing to do with homosexuality.