(05-07-2013 09:53 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 09:33 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 09:29 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 08:49 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Not a marriage without a bride and a groom.

The government does not agree.

God doesn't care what the government says

Why would that have any impact on public policy? Luckily the US is not a theocracy.

Never said it would, never said it should. Just stating the fact that government cna sanction a union and it has no spiritual significance.

(05-07-2013 10:01 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 09:53 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 09:33 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 09:29 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 08:49 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Not a marriage without a bride and a groom.

The government does not agree.

God doesn't care what the government says

Why would that have any impact on public policy? Luckily the US is not a theocracy.

Never said it would, never said it should. Just stating the fact that government can sanction a union and it has no spiritual significance.

Perfect. That's how it should be. Religious if you want it, secular if you don't, call it what you want.

(05-07-2013 09:50 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 09:33 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 09:29 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 08:49 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Not a marriage without a bride and a groom.

The government does not agree.

God doesn't care what the government says

There is no Christian god...so why should the government worry about it?

My bad...I meant to say: in the eyes of the government there is no Christian god...so why should the government worry about it?

(05-07-2013 10:11 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 10:01 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 09:53 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 09:33 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 09:29 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  The government does not agree.

God doesn't care what the government says

Why would that have any impact on public policy? Luckily the US is not a theocracy.

Never said it would, never said it should. Just stating the fact that government can sanction a union and it has no spiritual significance.

Perfect. That's how it should be. Religious if you want it, secular if you don't, call it what you want.

Yup Civil unions for all, and protections of individual religious freedoms..

(05-07-2013 09:48 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 09:42 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  A same sex "marriage" is inferior to a male-female marriage.

That's the way it is. Sorry if it makes you cry.

You can feel that way, but what good is it to just go around saying it?

Laws can't change biology, or the fact that children are better off with a male and female parent.

(05-07-2013 11:02 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 09:48 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 09:42 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  A same sex "marriage" is inferior to a male-female marriage.

That's the way it is. Sorry if it makes you cry.

You can feel that way, but what good is it to just go around saying it?

Laws can't change biology, or the fact that children are better off with a male and female parent.

The American Academy of Pediatrics in a 2002 policy statement declared: "A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with one or two gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual." That policy statement was reaffirmed in 2009.


The American Psychological Association found that "same-sex couples are remarkably similar to heterosexual couples, and that parenting effectiveness and the adjustment, development and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation."


the Child Welfare League of America's official position with regard to same-sex parents is that "lesbian, gay, and bisexual parents are as well-suited to raise children as their heterosexual counterparts."

(05-07-2013 09:28 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 09:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 08:59 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 07:12 PM)maximus Wrote:  Gay activist, Masha Gessen, admits “we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change” and further says she doesn’t believe it should exist at all.
It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. …(F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.
The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago.
I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally… I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby’s biological father is my brother, and my daughter’s biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three… And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compitatible with the institution of marriage.”
I suggest listening to he whole thing, it really is quite revealing. If you dont want to listen to the entire thing and just want to hear the above, skip to about the 6 minute mark.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/prog...ed/4058506

Never heard of her, and she certainly doesn't speak for me or the majority of Americans.
Hey - I can find a Fred Phelps video, and call him a Christian Activist, and then assume he speaks for you.

So, you disagree with the positions she takes, do you? Well then, what positions do you take on those issues? And how do your positions differ from hers?

Gay marriage will do NOTHING to affect straight marriage, other than have a few closeted guys come out. Family units will continue.

Churches will be free to marry whomever they want. I don't know a single person that advocates anything different. There are plenty of churches that will marry gays now.

It's a little more complicated than that. Gay marriage will not affect my normal marriage, but it does present another road block to the values I want to teach my kids, especially when this starts showing up in schools, which is already happening in the more liberal states. So yes, on an individual level, a person's sins that do not directly affectvme are between that person and God. On a societal level, I would strive to raise my family with traditional values and have cultural support rather than trying to do it in Sodom and Gammorah.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

(05-07-2013 09:28 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 09:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 08:59 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 07:12 PM)maximus Wrote:  Gay activist, Masha Gessen, admits “we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change” and further says she doesn’t believe it should exist at all.
It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. …(F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.
The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago.
I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally… I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby’s biological father is my brother, and my daughter’s biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three… And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compitatible with the institution of marriage.”
I suggest listening to he whole thing, it really is quite revealing. If you dont want to listen to the entire thing and just want to hear the above, skip to about the 6 minute mark.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/prog...ed/4058506

Never heard of her, and she certainly doesn't speak for me or the majority of Americans.
Hey - I can find a Fred Phelps video, and call him a Christian Activist, and then assume he speaks for you.

So, you disagree with the positions she takes, do you? Well then, what positions do you take on those issues? And how do your positions differ from hers?

Gay marriage will do NOTHING to affect straight marriage, other than have a few closeted guys come out. Family units will continue.
Churches will be free to marry whomever they want. I don't know a single person that advocates anything different. There are plenty of churches that will marry gays now.

But that's not answering the question I asked. What are YOUR positions on these issues.
Do you believe that churches SHOULD be free to marry or not marry whomever they want?
Do you believe that the nature of marriage SHOULD change? If so, how?
I'm not asking what you believe WILL happen, I'm asking what you believe SHOULD happen.

(05-07-2013 09:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 08:59 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 07:12 PM)maximus Wrote:  Gay activist, Masha Gessen, admits “we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change” and further says she doesn’t believe it should exist at all.
It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. …(F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.
The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago.
I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally… I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby’s biological father is my brother, and my daughter’s biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three… And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compitatible with the institution of marriage.”
I suggest listening to he whole thing, it really is quite revealing. If you dont want to listen to the entire thing and just want to hear the above, skip to about the 6 minute mark.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/prog...ed/4058506

Never heard of her, and she certainly doesn't speak for me or the majority of Americans.
Hey - I can find a Fred Phelps video, and call him a Christian Activist, and then assume he speaks for you.

So, you disagree with the positions she takes, do you? Well then, what positions do you take on those issues? And how do your positions differ from hers?

He obviously didn't listen to the link.

Don't waste your time with him

(05-07-2013 11:16 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 11:02 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 09:48 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 09:42 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  A same sex "marriage" is inferior to a male-female marriage.

That's the way it is. Sorry if it makes you cry.

You can feel that way, but what good is it to just go around saying it?

Laws can't change biology, or the fact that children are better off with a male and female parent.

The American Academy of Pediatrics in a 2002 policy statement declared: "A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with one or two gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual." That policy statement was reaffirmed in 2009.


The American Psychological Association found that "same-sex couples are remarkably similar to heterosexual couples, and that parenting effectiveness and the adjustment, development and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation."


the Child Welfare League of America's official position with regard to same-sex parents is that "lesbian, gay, and bisexual parents are as well-suited to raise children as their heterosexual counterparts."

and as I have I stated over and over, the next "right" that will be declared is producing a child in any way possible because gays have the right to have kids.

(05-07-2013 09:27 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 07:14 PM)maximus Wrote:  I'm sure the Obama supported anti-bully homo Dan Savage is taking a break from wishing cancer on people and cursing out teenagers to applaud.

So you take 2 people on both sides of the issue and act like they speak for everyone...typical.

First, there were more than two people on the "expert" gay panel in the link.

Next, Dan Savage is the declared (by Obama) leader of the national anti bullying campaign and a national voice for gays. Can you point me to the repudiation for his sick remarks? Have at it.

(05-08-2013 07:10 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 09:28 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 09:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 08:59 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 07:12 PM)maximus Wrote:  Gay activist, Masha Gessen, admits “we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change” and further says she doesn’t believe it should exist at all.
It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. …(F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.
The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago.
I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally… I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby’s biological father is my brother, and my daughter’s biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three… And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compitatible with the institution of marriage.”
I suggest listening to he whole thing, it really is quite revealing. If you dont want to listen to the entire thing and just want to hear the above, skip to about the 6 minute mark.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/prog...ed/4058506

Never heard of her, and she certainly doesn't speak for me or the majority of Americans.
Hey - I can find a Fred Phelps video, and call him a Christian Activist, and then assume he speaks for you.

So, you disagree with the positions she takes, do you? Well then, what positions do you take on those issues? And how do your positions differ from hers?

Gay marriage will do NOTHING to affect straight marriage, other than have a few closeted guys come out. Family units will continue.
Churches will be free to marry whomever they want. I don't know a single person that advocates anything different. There are plenty of churches that will marry gays now.

But that's not answering the question I asked. What are YOUR positions on these issues.
Do you believe that churches SHOULD be free to marry or not marry whomever they want?
Do you believe that the nature of marriage SHOULD change? If so, how?
I'm not asking what you believe WILL happen, I'm asking what you believe SHOULD happen.

Churches should be free to marry whomever they want.

When you say nature, what do you mean? Marriage, and it's purpose, has changed over the centuries. It used to be a way to add power - by marrying off a daughter (which she had no say in the matter) to add land, money, connections, etc.

Adding same sex marriage (two loving individuals) is less of a change to the nature of marriage than the change of marriage for love vs power.

(05-08-2013 08:42 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  When you say nature, what do you mean? Marriage, and it's purpose, has changed over the centuries. It used to be a way to add power - by marrying off a daughter (which she had no say in the matter) to add land, money, connections, etc.

Adding same sex marriage (two loving individuals) is less of a change to the nature of marriage than the change of marriage for love vs power.

Mind numbingly ludicrous.

All I know is that two adult, gay individuals getting married - whether it's by a religiously ordained leader or at a court house - doesn't negatively impact my life one iota. Too many other things, small and large, that can cause stress in my daily life. This ain't one of them.

IMO, those who get married for the wrong reasons, have reality-show or "Vegas" marriages that are annulled two weeks later, or commit adultery while married (regardless of sexual orientation) are the offensive ones who besmirch the institution of 'marriage.'

(05-08-2013 08:42 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(05-08-2013 07:10 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 09:28 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 09:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 08:59 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  Never heard of her, and she certainly doesn't speak for me or the majority of Americans.
Hey - I can find a Fred Phelps video, and call him a Christian Activist, and then assume he speaks for you.

So, you disagree with the positions she takes, do you? Well then, what positions do you take on those issues? And how do your positions differ from hers?

Gay marriage will do NOTHING to affect straight marriage, other than have a few closeted guys come out. Family units will continue.
Churches will be free to marry whomever they want. I don't know a single person that advocates anything different. There are plenty of churches that will marry gays now.

But that's not answering the question I asked. What are YOUR positions on these issues.
Do you believe that churches SHOULD be free to marry or not marry whomever they want?
Do you believe that the nature of marriage SHOULD change? If so, how?
I'm not asking what you believe WILL happen, I'm asking what you believe SHOULD happen.

Churches should be free to marry whomever they want.

When you say nature, what do you mean? Marriage, and it's purpose, has changed over the centuries. It used to be a way to add power - by marrying off a daughter (which she had no say in the matter) to add land, money, connections, etc.

Adding same sex marriage (two loving individuals) is less of a change to the nature of marriage than the change of marriage for love vs power.

Someone has been watching too much Game of Thrones.

Positive rep me or I'll sell you to gypsies.

(05-09-2013 07:42 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  All I know is that two adult, gay individuals getting married - whether it's by a religiously ordained leader or at a court house - doesn't negatively impact my life one iota. Too many other things, small and large, that can cause stress in my daily life. This ain't one of them.

IMO, those who get married for the wrong reasons, have reality-show or "Vegas" marriages that are annulled two weeks later, or commit adultery while married (regardless of sexual orientation) are the offensive ones who besmirch the institution of 'marriage.'

I'm guessing you don't have kids.

(05-09-2013 07:52 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(05-09-2013 07:42 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  All I know is that two adult, gay individuals getting married - whether it's by a religiously ordained leader or at a court house - doesn't negatively impact my life one iota. Too many other things, small and large, that can cause stress in my daily life. This ain't one of them.

IMO, those who get married for the wrong reasons, have reality-show or "Vegas" marriages that are annulled two weeks later, or commit adultery while married (regardless of sexual orientation) are the offensive ones who besmirch the institution of 'marriage.'

I'm guessing you don't have kids.

Kids don't "choose" their sexual orientation. Kids CAN, however, be influenced on how they treat marriage and their partners by what they see on television, hear in rock/rap music, etc.

So that being the case, a kid seeing two men holding hands is less 'offensive' than him seeing a Hollywood celeb on his 3rd trophy wife because he cheated on/slapped around his 2nd.

(05-09-2013 08:11 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(05-09-2013 07:52 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(05-09-2013 07:42 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  All I know is that two adult, gay individuals getting married - whether it's by a religiously ordained leader or at a court house - doesn't negatively impact my life one iota. Too many other things, small and large, that can cause stress in my daily life. This ain't one of them.

IMO, those who get married for the wrong reasons, have reality-show or "Vegas" marriages that are annulled two weeks later, or commit adultery while married (regardless of sexual orientation) are the offensive ones who besmirch the institution of 'marriage.'

I'm guessing you don't have kids.

Kids don't "choose" their sexual orientation. Kids CAN, however, be influenced on how they treat marriage and their partners by what they see on television, hear in rock/rap music, etc.

So that being the case, a kid seeing two men holding hands is less 'offensive' than him seeing a Hollywood celeb on his 3rd trophy wife because he cheated on/slapped around his 2nd.

Then our disagreement is fundamental. I believe that kids can absolutely be socialised into a sexual orientation... maybe not as a conscious choice, but an evolution over time. It is well known that a large percentage were molested. Even the Huffington Post concedes Gay parents are many times more likely to have gay kids. Then there is the anecdotal evidence that anyone oleder than about 30 can attest to. For example, I graduated high school in '97 and there wasn't a single gay kid in my class. Go to the mall now and the number of homosexual kids is astounding.

Furthermore, I don't want it taught to my kids in schools or even brought up in sex ed unless it is brought up in the truth of the physical damage it causes and the biological dangers it presents.

And yes, your reference to the Hollywood celeb is true. Just because those that have been laughed at for traditional values for years lost the fight with Hollywood over heterosexual deviance and we are seeing the results we warned of losing that fight doesn't mean we should give up this one and surrender to the results of this as well. Two wrongs don't make a right.

The more acceptable homosexuality is, the more gays there are. Going forward there will be more and more gays. And the "you're born that way", even in the face of the truth of the lie will continue to be the mantra.

(05-09-2013 08:24 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  For example, I graduated high school in '97 and there wasn't a single gay kid in my class. Go to the mall now and the number of homosexual kids is astounding.

(05-09-2013 08:24 AM)Paul M Wrote:  The more acceptable homosexuality is, the more gays there are. Going forward there will be more and more gays.

What's far more likely is that there have been, and always will be, the same % of gays in the general population. A couple decades ago, more gays in high school kept their orientation hidden and/or had "fake" heterosexual relationships out of fear of bullying, shame or family alienation. Some still do, but there's probably more of a comfort level of being "out" now.

Open homosexuality is hardly new. Go back to the ancient Greeks, Rennaisance Romans, etc, and some of the big names you've heard of lived homosexual or bisexual lives.