Marriage Equality Defended in Massachusetts

[Vincent Vega]

Originally posted by 2861U2


My belief comes from (get ready) the Bible, folks. The Bible says marriage is a man and a woman, a husband and a wife. Read Genesis 2, 1 Corinthians 7, Ephesians 5...

And my position on homosexuals? Yes, also from the Bible. The Bible condemns such relations and condemns sexual immorality (which includes many things). The body is a temple, a gift from God, meant only for creating life, something which homosexuals cannot do.

Holy dark ages!

[maycocksean]

Originally posted by 2861U2


Narrow minded? I have an opinion, and because it disagrees with your opinion, I'm narrow minded?

I dont think opposing marriage being anything other than a man and a woman is narrow minded or intolerant. I adhere to a strict set of principles which I follow, but I consider myself open minded on many things.

**sigh**

Did you read the article?

Would you just read the article and give me your response to that.

Please.

[2861U2]

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


So your parents only had sex when they had you and whatever siblings you have?

Huh? You lost me. I never said that. I have no idea what their sex life is/was like. Dont make me think about it, please.

This is a pile of rubbish and has no Biblical backing. Your knowledge of the Bible is abysmal, but care to show anything backing this up?

I'm no scholar, but I wouldnt call it abysmal. Many places in the Bible is the body referred to as a temple.

What denominaion did you grow up?

I am a Methodist.

[Dusty Bottoms]

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


So your parents only had sex when they had you and whatever siblings you have?

This is a pile of rubbish and has no Biblical backing. Your knowledge of the Bible is abysmal, but care to show anything backing this up?

What denominaion did you grow up?

To be fair to him, this is what I was taught at my Catholic high school. Whenever you have sexual relations you should be open to the possibility of procreations, which is why birth control, masturbation, homosexuality, etc... is seen as a sin.

Natural family planning was taught as to how to avoid having children during sexual intercourse, but is not a sin because you are still open to the possibilty of procreation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_family_planning

[BVS]

Originally posted by 2861U2


Huh? You lost me. I never said that. I have no idea what their sex life is/was like. Dont make me think about it, please.

You said:

"Any sexual act, either with one's self or with others, that is not for the purpose of creating life is a sin. And if I ever do something like that, then yes, I will have sinned."

So that would include sex for pleasure even between married couples.

Originally posted by 2861U2

I'm no scholar, but I wouldnt call it abysmal. Many places in the Bible is the body referred to as a temple.

Scholar, that's apparent. Yes I know the temple part, people have used it to justify no tattoos to not drinking alcohol; yet they never use it to talk about the obese

But I'll stick with abysmal, for your definition of sex has no biblical basis whatsoever.

You've been shown the original text and context of all these passages that apparently speak of homosexuality here in FYM, yet you've ignored them.

Originally posted by 2861U2

I am a Methodist.

Your view of sex is definately not a Methodist belief.

[BVS]

Originally posted by Dusty Bottoms


To be fair to him, this is what I was taught at my Catholic high school.

Well it's why I asked him his denomination? I knew he was protestant.

[martha]

Originally posted by 2861U2
Any sexual act, either with one's self or with others, that is not for the purpose of creating life is a sin.

I'm gonna ask, although I know you won't answer, but here goes:

I have had a variety of reproductive organs removed. Therefore, I cannot have children. If I continue to have sex with my male husband of 18 years, are we sinning?

[martha]

Originally posted by Bluer White
I assume that because 2861U2's position is so repulsive,

everyone piling on in this forum could never cast a vote for Hillary, Barack Obama, John Edwards, or Al Gore for president. All bigoted religious zealots. Dangerous even.

They're chicken, but surely less repulsive than the Republicans who've been married more than once, frequently as a result of extramarital affairs.

[A_Wanderer]

But they are all to old to have been raised with the Junior Anti-Sex League, they made mistakes so that the young don't have to.

[martha]

Originally posted by A_Wanderer
But they are all to old to have been raised with the Junior Anti-Sex League, they made mistakes so that the young don't have to.

They're givers.

[blueeyedgirl]

Originally posted by 2861U2


Oral sex absolutely is a sin, IMO. Any sexual act, either with one's self or with others, that is not for the purpose of creating life is a sin. And if I ever do something like that, then yes, I will have sinned.

But what a way to go out!

[Irvine511]

i'm still waiting to hear all about this "gay lifestyle" i wish i were living.

if it's so sinful, i'm so sorry i seem to be missing out on all the fun!

[Ormus]

Originally posted by Dusty Bottoms
Natural family planning was taught as to how to avoid having children during sexual intercourse, but is not a sin because you are still open to the possibilty of procreation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_family_planning

This, of course, is an example of 20th century "modernist" (as in the religious definition, not the philosophical movement) revisionism. It should be known that, for close to a millennium beforehand, not only was the "rhythm method" a mortal sin, but any conscious decision with the intention of avoiding pregnancy was a mortal sin. You were, essentially, to have sex as often as the man had the urge, and that's why the stereotype of Irish Catholic families involved having about 12+ children. Anything less than that was contrary to "natural law."

Earlier incarnations of "natural law" went even further to prohibit lusting after one's spouse and for having any pleasure during sex. Women were explicitly banned from looking like she was enjoying it, and the "missionary position" was developed so the man wouldn't look at any of the "lady parts." Men, likewise, were prohibited from looking at sex as anything less than a "necessary evil" for purposes of having more children. But, as I said before, even if the man was tired of having children, it would have been a mortal sin for him to consciously decide to never have sex again with his wife. It would have been contrary to "natural law."

I make mention of this in detail, because this is the nonsense theology behind the Roman Catholic Church's institutionalized homophobia. The fact that, in the 21st century, we have people both in the real world and in this thread (not referring to you specially, mind you) spouting off variations of this bizarre medieval (il)logic makes me utterly sick.

And "religious" people wonder why they have a reputation for being intolerant, irrational, and prone to extremism around the world!

[Earnie Shavers]

What are the general public stats like in the US?

Just head on the radio - literally 15 minutes ago - 57% of Australians support gay marriage, 76% support gay couples receiving all equal rights in all regards as straight couples.

So, obviously, that means there's about 20% who support getting all the same rights, yet not an actual marriage certificate (however that would work), and only about 20% who outright disagree with it all together (or gave a "Don't know/don't care" answer)

[phillyfan26]

Originally posted by maycocksean


**sigh**

Did you read the article?

Would you just read the article and give me your response to that.

Please.

He's going to continue to avoid it.

Why?

Because he won't be able to cite something in the Bible about it.

2861U2, although your citations so far have failed in comparison to those by Ormus. He has proven time and again that homosexuality as defined in the Bible does not equal modern homosexuality.

Thus, you cannot cite the Bible as a source of information on modern homosexuality. It can't work. It doesn't work.

But, because you are NARROW MINDED, you will continue to ignore the best arguments and go for the ones where you can twist Biblical passages into just barely the right form to get by (well, in your mind, anyway).

[yolland]

Originally posted by Earnie Shavers
What are the general public stats like in the US?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-se..._opinion#Polls

[maycocksean]

Originally posted by phillyfan26


He's going to continue to avoid it.

It appears that way. . .

I just can't understand why. What's he afraid of?

[Ormus]

Originally posted by maycocksean
I just can't understand why. What's he afraid of?

It's laughable, to me, because I couldn't be an atheist even if I tried, but I tend to think that this old 1922 cartoon is what "Christian fundamentalists" fear in themselves if they allow themselves to question their ingrained traditional beliefs. As such, they would rather hate the entire world than accept the mountain of logical arguments, historical evidence, modern linguistics, etc. that prove them wrong.

I'm reminded of something I was told in my own Catholic high school religious education: the difference between an "immature" faith--one that is superficial, unquestioning, and the equivalent of rote memorization with no deeper understanding--and a "mature" faith--one that often comes after long personal struggles, periods of questioning, lots of research, prayer, and contemplation, where you emerge differently, but stronger than before. An "immature" faith, in my opinion (not looking to judge anyone here, by the way), just looks at what's in front of them and/or what someone tells them and assumes that's the way it's always been since the beginning of time.

A "mature" faith would understand that the history of Christianity involved vigorous intellectual discussions, and, sometimes, whole shifts in philosophical movements. St. Augustine of Hippo, even though I greatly disagree with much of his philosophical reasonings, basically broke the mold of early Christianity and started over. The Middle Ages later saw a movement to Scholasticism, which was then later succeeded by Thomism...which later saw Aristotelian Thomism and a resurgence of neo-scholasticism in the 19th century. The present day philosophy would probably be best described as "neo-Thomist," but I'm not sure if that's what others would say.

[phillyfan26]

Originally posted by Ormus




It's laughable, to me, because I couldn't be an atheist even if I tried, but I tend to think that this old 1922 cartoon is what "Christian fundamentalists" fear in themselves if they allow themselves to question their ingrained traditional beliefs. As such, they would rather hate the entire world than accept the mountain of logical arguments, historical evidence, modern linguistics, etc. that prove them wrong.

The cartoon is actually very accurate, just look at the first step. They won't take that step.

Of course, something like homosexuality as we know, having developed within the last few centuries, MUST have been forseen by these writers who were not God but must have been writing EXACTLY as he told them to.

So, not only was there no political bias, there was also the capability of seeing into the future! Those guys were something else.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by martha


They're chicken, but surely less repulsive than the Republicans who've been married more than once, frequently as a result of extramarital affairs.

no one likes affairs, but at least in every single one of those fairs the penis found it's righteous, god-given home inside a vagina, and not some godless donut bumpin' performed by two nubile, 20-something lesbians who's secret deisre for each other just cannot be contained any longer, or two lithe young men in the prime of their lives overcome by sweaty passion for the other's rippling, glistening bodies who ... nevermind.