inquisitive01

Yet you are still able to throw in an appeal to ridicule (RE: "Inquistive's nonsense").





Involuntary slavery (as opposed to voluntary slavery).





Aren't homosexuals persecuting, even mocking Christians (as well as other religions) by trying to turn marriage into something that it really shouldn't be? What's the next step after this? Being allowed to marry more than one person of the same sex? One couple being allowed to marry another couple (swinging marriages)?

Refer to my reply to Nice Squirrel (my last post before this one) for your other, uhh, questions. And you said others were "cherry picking?" :funny:

Tsurmon

Oh yes, polygomy is such an awful sight in the eyes of God. Just ask the King Solomon...who had how many wives AND concubines?

Bah, nothing ticks me off more than when Christians act as if they're being persecuted. In what way does two men or women getting married affect you in the least?! And by persecute, I mean:

"To oppress or harass with ill-treatment, especially because of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs"

Eh? Are gay people storming into your house in the middle of night and getting married while calling you a fat cracker? I don't think so.

inquisitive01

Just "two (homosexual) men or women" getting married wouldn't affect much. However, if it's ultimately 20,000,000 (homosexual) men or women getting married . . . well, you get my picture. I certainly don't want my social-security (and other) contributions to go for supporting this. Don't get me wrong, though. If someone feels they need a homosexual relationship to live happily, then that's fine with me and they should have a right to do so. However, asking for marriage priviledges just seems like asking for too much (special priviledges, rather than just normal, legal priviledges of race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.). And once again, what's next? Swinging marriages?

Didn't King Solomon also lose quite a bit due to indulgence in other religions? Wasn't it written (in Matthew 4:28-29) that even something as simple as (the design of a) lily was much greater in glory than ALL of Solomon's glory (and wealth)?

Chris Weimer

What!?!?!? Marriage is not a special privilege. It is a legal privilege!!!! Even if you get "married" by a pastor, you still have to go to the courthouse and get a license for it! Your notion is absurd.

inquisitive01

I'll rephrase it then: special legal priviledges.

Chris Weimer

What makes it so special, huh? Just because you deem it so? Can I do that too? From now on, anyone who isn't a Christian can't vote, because it's a special legal privilege. Yeah, you are so sophisticated, or shall I say sofistikayted. :down:

On the up side of things, this is my 1,300th post!

Sven

Last thread in which some Christians desperately tried to make a case against gay marriage. Have fun reading it! :wave:

Vorkosigan

What a dangerous line of thought. Next you'll be asking us to shut up, as Infidels are mocking Christians. And so on.

In reality, gay marriage only mocks those who consider it their duty to suppress the happiness of others.

Here's another reality: Burials in Greek Macedonia: Possible Evidence for Same-Sex Committed Relationships in Early Christianity.

The world is more complex than you think it is, and marriage a hell of a lot more complex.

Vorkosigan

Viti

Um, you obviously do not have a good working definition of "persecution".

Shouldn't be according to whom? You? Why do you get to define marriage? Anyway all they are asking for is the right to have hospital visitiations, transfer property, share employee health benefits, and other civil benefits of marriage that have nothing to do with religion.
Why would either of those be a next step? This is a logical fallacy known as "slippery slope".

Your response did not address why it is an abomination nor define women's and men's clothes. You at least attempted to justify the silly food laws with vague "health" reasons, you have made no attempt with this silly law. Hows about just admitting it's silly?

Viti

Your social security goes to you, theirs goes to them. Whethere they are married or not they get their own social security from working. The fact is it doesn't affect you at all, your money (including "other contributions") doesn't support anyone's marriage...why would it support gay marriages? You cannot demonstrate any ill affects other than you don't like it. It doesn't affect you or anyone else at all whether a couple sharing life and love is the same or a different gender.

Gays pay taxes, work, and contribute to society equally yet you feel it's okay to not treat them equally under the law?

How is asking for the same civil rights any other couple enjoys asking for special privilages? How is it "special" to be with your partner when they are in the ICU or the right to medical leave under the family leave act if your partner is ill?

I suppose you think those that fought to legalize biracial marriage were asking for special rights too.