Can a Christian Support Gay Marriage?

For those deep thinkers out there.

Moderator: tuttle

Post Reply
TNLawPiper
BrotherOfTheBriar YouHeartlessBastards
BrotherOfTheBriar YouHeartlessBastards
Posts: 17269
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by TNLawPiper » Thu Feb 11, 2010 6:38 pm

Kerdy wrote:
Onyx wrote:
Kerdy wrote:
infidel wrote:
To say someone can "recover" from homosexuality like alcoholism is just retarded too.
And yet, it happens everyday. What were you saying about retarded?
This is something I'd like to see some longitudinal research on. By that I mean, it's no good (from an objective point of view) getting the testimony of "recovered" homosexual still in the hot flush of his deliverance story. Researchers would need to follow up on these guys 30 years later. If you did the same thing with alcoholics, you'd find that some remained sober, others didn't. I don't know what you would find with homosexuality.

I understand that Alcoholics Anonymous take the view that a person remains an alcoholic who has abstained from drink, rather than speaking of being cured. The Christian might believe that true healing is possible. But in both cases, they agree that the alcoholism is harmful. So in this respect, the analogy with homosexuality falls down. There is not agreement that homosexuality is bad as there is generally with alcoholism.
Has anyone ever wondered why STD's are only spread among the sexually deviant? If so, the answer is because their actions are WRONG!
Yeah -- no one has ever received AIDS without first having sex with a gay guy.

<redacted_emoji> <redacted_emoji> <redacted_emoji> <redacted_emoji> <redacted_emoji>

User avatar
Kerdy
Smootchie
Smootchie
Posts: 16961
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: North Carolina

Post by Kerdy » Thu Feb 11, 2010 6:42 pm

Onyx wrote:
Kerdy wrote:EDIT: And thanks for calling me intelligent. My wife walked by and said something about that one. LOL! :lol:
Please ask your good wife for me - are you also unwilling to reason? Whatever her answer, I will accept it.
You keep saying I am unwilling to reason. What you are calling reason in this discussion I call a lack of common sense.

If I would say "Poor judgement with handguns causes people to die all the time", your response (based on your response to this talk) would be, "But not everyone who is shot dies."

Really has nothing to do with what I said no matter how much you say I am unwilling to reason.
"Let it be understood that those who are not found living as He taught are not Christian- even though they profess with the lips the teaching of Christ." - Justin Martyr  ( c.160 )

“Moral principles do not depend on a majority vote. Wrong is wrong, even if everybody is wrong. Right is right, even if nobody is right.” - Venerable Servant of God, Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

User avatar
Kerdy
Smootchie
Smootchie
Posts: 16961
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: North Carolina

Post by Kerdy » Thu Feb 11, 2010 6:43 pm

TNLawPiper wrote:
Kerdy wrote:
Onyx wrote:
Kerdy wrote:
infidel wrote:
To say someone can "recover" from homosexuality like alcoholism is just retarded too.
And yet, it happens everyday. What were you saying about retarded?
This is something I'd like to see some longitudinal research on. By that I mean, it's no good (from an objective point of view) getting the testimony of "recovered" homosexual still in the hot flush of his deliverance story. Researchers would need to follow up on these guys 30 years later. If you did the same thing with alcoholics, you'd find that some remained sober, others didn't. I don't know what you would find with homosexuality.

I understand that Alcoholics Anonymous take the view that a person remains an alcoholic who has abstained from drink, rather than speaking of being cured. The Christian might believe that true healing is possible. But in both cases, they agree that the alcoholism is harmful. So in this respect, the analogy with homosexuality falls down. There is not agreement that homosexuality is bad as there is generally with alcoholism.
Has anyone ever wondered why STD's are only spread among the sexually deviant? If so, the answer is because their actions are WRONG!
Yeah -- no one has ever received AIDS without first having sex with a gay guy.

<redacted_emoji> <redacted_emoji> <redacted_emoji> <redacted_emoji> <redacted_emoji>
And another poster who posts something not related to what I posted. Is this the theme tonight?
"Let it be understood that those who are not found living as He taught are not Christian- even though they profess with the lips the teaching of Christ." - Justin Martyr  ( c.160 )

“Moral principles do not depend on a majority vote. Wrong is wrong, even if everybody is wrong. Right is right, even if nobody is right.” - Venerable Servant of God, Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

User avatar
Onyx
Darth Onyx, Bringer of Unity
Darth Onyx, Bringer of Unity
Posts: 10857
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Skeptopolis

Post by Onyx » Thu Feb 11, 2010 6:43 pm

Kerdy wrote:
Onyx wrote:
Kerdy, I have no idea how a man as intelligent as you can be so unwilling to reason.

Is your objection:
a) that thrush is not sexually transmitted within marriages
b) that thrush is not a disease
c) something else I'm just not getting?

If it is c, please tell me why my objection to your point is invalid.
My objection is you attempting to place Thrush in the same category as a VD/STD when it clearly isnt. That is, unless you can also take AIDS/HIV off the VD/STD list because you can get it in other ways not related to sex.

By the way, do you also consider pregancy to be an STD?

EDIT: And thanks for calling me intelligent. My wife walked by and said something about that one. LOL! :lol:

ANOTHER EDIT: Here, let me attempt to explain it even more. A female can get Thrush all on her own for a variety of reasons without any outside help. Not the same for STDs. That keeps it from being a sexually transmitted anything unless you know of cases where someone spontaneously erupted in a case of Chlamydia due to stress or a bad diet. Also, you COULD get ringworm from having sex, but its not an STD either.
Understood. All of these diseases can be got in other ways, and about any communicable disease be transmitted during sex, and yet the diseases themselves would not be classed as sexually transmitted.

However an actual case of thrush may be transmitted sexually within marriage. That still drains the value from your initial point. Never mind all the other people who got thrush from stress. This is a disease which is sexually transmitted within monogamous marriage.

TNLawPiper
BrotherOfTheBriar YouHeartlessBastards
BrotherOfTheBriar YouHeartlessBastards
Posts: 17269
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by TNLawPiper » Thu Feb 11, 2010 6:48 pm

Kerdy wrote:
TNLawPiper wrote:
Kerdy wrote:
Onyx wrote:
Kerdy wrote:
infidel wrote:
To say someone can "recover" from homosexuality like alcoholism is just retarded too.
And yet, it happens everyday. What were you saying about retarded?
This is something I'd like to see some longitudinal research on. By that I mean, it's no good (from an objective point of view) getting the testimony of "recovered" homosexual still in the hot flush of his deliverance story. Researchers would need to follow up on these guys 30 years later. If you did the same thing with alcoholics, you'd find that some remained sober, others didn't. I don't know what you would find with homosexuality.

I understand that Alcoholics Anonymous take the view that a person remains an alcoholic who has abstained from drink, rather than speaking of being cured. The Christian might believe that true healing is possible. But in both cases, they agree that the alcoholism is harmful. So in this respect, the analogy with homosexuality falls down. There is not agreement that homosexuality is bad as there is generally with alcoholism.
Has anyone ever wondered why STD's are only spread among the sexually deviant? If so, the answer is because their actions are WRONG!
Yeah -- no one has ever received AIDS without first having sex with a gay guy.

<redacted_emoji> <redacted_emoji> <redacted_emoji> <redacted_emoji> <redacted_emoji>
And another poster who posts something not related to what I posted. Is this the theme tonight?
Proposition #1: STDs are only spread among the sexually deviant. The implication is that no STD is spread between anyone other than the sexually deviant.

Proposition #2: There are people in monogamous, committed, and heterosexual relationships that have contract HIV and AIDS through other means (e.g., needle pricks, blood transfusions, blood contamination, and bites from infected animals).

I'm sure that you can see why these statements conflict. One statement must be false. Seeing as there is empirical data to support the second statement, the first must necessarily be false. Thus is logic.

For example: x=1 or x=2. x cannot be both 1 and 2, so you determine what x is, and that informs as to whether it's 1 or 2.

User avatar
venator260
Minister of Metal
Minister of Metal
Posts: 2452
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 6:00 pm
Location: Southcentral, PA
Contact:

Post by venator260 » Thu Feb 11, 2010 6:50 pm

Bigwill wrote:
venator260 wrote:Goodness. For the first time, I agree with the positions of both Kerdy and Bigwill. I feel unsettled.
In other words:

Roses are red,
Violets are blue,
I'm schitzophrenic,
And so am I!

:lol:;):)
Possibly. 8)

User avatar
Kerdy
Smootchie
Smootchie
Posts: 16961
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: North Carolina

Post by Kerdy » Thu Feb 11, 2010 6:51 pm

Onyx wrote:
Kerdy wrote:
Onyx wrote:
Kerdy, I have no idea how a man as intelligent as you can be so unwilling to reason.

Is your objection:
a) that thrush is not sexually transmitted within marriages
b) that thrush is not a disease
c) something else I'm just not getting?

If it is c, please tell me why my objection to your point is invalid.
My objection is you attempting to place Thrush in the same category as a VD/STD when it clearly isnt. That is, unless you can also take AIDS/HIV off the VD/STD list because you can get it in other ways not related to sex.

By the way, do you also consider pregancy to be an STD?

EDIT: And thanks for calling me intelligent. My wife walked by and said something about that one. LOL! :lol:

ANOTHER EDIT: Here, let me attempt to explain it even more. A female can get Thrush all on her own for a variety of reasons without any outside help. Not the same for STDs. That keeps it from being a sexually transmitted anything unless you know of cases where someone spontaneously erupted in a case of Chlamydia due to stress or a bad diet. Also, you COULD get ringworm from having sex, but its not an STD either.
Understood. All of these diseases can be got in other ways, and about any communicable disease be transmitted during sex, and yet the diseases themselves would not be classed as sexually transmitted.

However an actual case of thrush may be transmitted sexually within marriage. That still drains the value from your initial point. Never mind all the other people who got thrush from stress. This is a disease which is sexually transmitted within monogamous marriage.
Ok, if you say so. I am a little tired of this. To be honest its like attempting to explain why my kids need to practice reading when they dont want to read or explaining to a suspect the importance of honesty during the interview. They are always looking for a way out of it which may seem reasonable to them at the time, but still wrong.
"Let it be understood that those who are not found living as He taught are not Christian- even though they profess with the lips the teaching of Christ." - Justin Martyr  ( c.160 )

“Moral principles do not depend on a majority vote. Wrong is wrong, even if everybody is wrong. Right is right, even if nobody is right.” - Venerable Servant of God, Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

User avatar
Kerdy
Smootchie
Smootchie
Posts: 16961
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: North Carolina

Post by Kerdy » Thu Feb 11, 2010 6:52 pm

TNLawPiper wrote:
Kerdy wrote:
TNLawPiper wrote:
Kerdy wrote:
Onyx wrote:
Kerdy wrote:
infidel wrote:
To say someone can "recover" from homosexuality like alcoholism is just retarded too.
And yet, it happens everyday. What were you saying about retarded?
This is something I'd like to see some longitudinal research on. By that I mean, it's no good (from an objective point of view) getting the testimony of "recovered" homosexual still in the hot flush of his deliverance story. Researchers would need to follow up on these guys 30 years later. If you did the same thing with alcoholics, you'd find that some remained sober, others didn't. I don't know what you would find with homosexuality.

I understand that Alcoholics Anonymous take the view that a person remains an alcoholic who has abstained from drink, rather than speaking of being cured. The Christian might believe that true healing is possible. But in both cases, they agree that the alcoholism is harmful. So in this respect, the analogy with homosexuality falls down. There is not agreement that homosexuality is bad as there is generally with alcoholism.
Has anyone ever wondered why STD's are only spread among the sexually deviant? If so, the answer is because their actions are WRONG!
Yeah -- no one has ever received AIDS without first having sex with a gay guy.

<redacted_emoji> <redacted_emoji> <redacted_emoji> <redacted_emoji> <redacted_emoji>
And another poster who posts something not related to what I posted. Is this the theme tonight?
Proposition #1: STDs are only spread among the sexually deviant. The implication is that no STD is spread between anyone other than the sexually deviant.

Proposition #2: There are people in monogamous, committed, and heterosexual relationships that have contract HIV and AIDS through other means (e.g., needle pricks, blood transfusions, blood contamination, and bites from infected animals).

I'm sure that you can see why these statements conflict. One statement must be false. Seeing as there is empirical data to support the second statement, the first must necessarily be false. Thus is logic.

For example: x=1 or x=2. x cannot be both 1 and 2, so you determine what x is, and that informs as to whether it's 1 or 2.
I realize this is a little over your head so I wont bother breaking it down for you.
"Let it be understood that those who are not found living as He taught are not Christian- even though they profess with the lips the teaching of Christ." - Justin Martyr  ( c.160 )

“Moral principles do not depend on a majority vote. Wrong is wrong, even if everybody is wrong. Right is right, even if nobody is right.” - Venerable Servant of God, Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

TNLawPiper
BrotherOfTheBriar YouHeartlessBastards
BrotherOfTheBriar YouHeartlessBastards
Posts: 17269
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by TNLawPiper » Thu Feb 11, 2010 6:54 pm

Can a Christian support the laws of a nation that legalize homosexual, or a nation that does not criminalize other sins?

By the logic of many posts in this thread, the answer to that question is no. I expect you all to rescind any prior patriotic statements.

Human rights being granted to chimpanzees has nothing to do with humans contracting with each other. Incestuous and bigamous relationships are not allowed because incest and bigamy are illegal. If homosexuality were illegal, we'd be discussing a different topic. As it is, homosexual couples are discriminated against by the state that grants exclusive, inalienable rights to married heterosexual couples.

I do not agree with homosexuality, but if our Constitution is to have integrity, homosexual marriage should be legalized.

TNLawPiper
BrotherOfTheBriar YouHeartlessBastards
BrotherOfTheBriar YouHeartlessBastards
Posts: 17269
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by TNLawPiper » Thu Feb 11, 2010 6:55 pm

Kerdy wrote:
TNLawPiper wrote:
Kerdy wrote:
TNLawPiper wrote:
Kerdy wrote:
Onyx wrote:
Kerdy wrote:
infidel wrote:
To say someone can "recover" from homosexuality like alcoholism is just retarded too.
And yet, it happens everyday. What were you saying about retarded?
This is something I'd like to see some longitudinal research on. By that I mean, it's no good (from an objective point of view) getting the testimony of "recovered" homosexual still in the hot flush of his deliverance story. Researchers would need to follow up on these guys 30 years later. If you did the same thing with alcoholics, you'd find that some remained sober, others didn't. I don't know what you would find with homosexuality.

I understand that Alcoholics Anonymous take the view that a person remains an alcoholic who has abstained from drink, rather than speaking of being cured. The Christian might believe that true healing is possible. But in both cases, they agree that the alcoholism is harmful. So in this respect, the analogy with homosexuality falls down. There is not agreement that homosexuality is bad as there is generally with alcoholism.
Has anyone ever wondered why STD's are only spread among the sexually deviant? If so, the answer is because their actions are WRONG!
Yeah -- no one has ever received AIDS without first having sex with a gay guy.

<redacted_emoji> <redacted_emoji> <redacted_emoji> <redacted_emoji> <redacted_emoji>
And another poster who posts something not related to what I posted. Is this the theme tonight?
Proposition #1: STDs are only spread among the sexually deviant. The implication is that no STD is spread between anyone other than the sexually deviant.

Proposition #2: There are people in monogamous, committed, and heterosexual relationships that have contract HIV and AIDS through other means (e.g., needle pricks, blood transfusions, blood contamination, and bites from infected animals).

I'm sure that you can see why these statements conflict. One statement must be false. Seeing as there is empirical data to support the second statement, the first must necessarily be false. Thus is logic.

For example: x=1 or x=2. x cannot be both 1 and 2, so you determine what x is, and that informs as to whether it's 1 or 2.
I realize this is a little over your head so I wont bother breaking it down for you.
LOGIC FAIL. You cannot refute my post while maintaining the truthfulness of your initial statement.

User avatar
Kerdy
Smootchie
Smootchie
Posts: 16961
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: North Carolina

Post by Kerdy » Thu Feb 11, 2010 6:59 pm

TNLawPiper wrote:Can a Christian support the laws of a nation that legalize homosexual, or a nation that does not criminalize other sins?

By the logic of many posts in this thread, the answer to that question is no. I expect you all to rescind any prior patriotic statements.

Human rights being granted to chimpanzees has nothing to do with humans contracting with each other. Incestuous and bigamous relationships are not allowed because incest and bigamy are illegal. If homosexuality were illegal, we'd be discussing a different topic. As it is, homosexual couples are discriminated against by the state that grants exclusive, inalienable rights to married heterosexual couples.

I do not agree with homosexuality, but if our Constitution is to have integrity, homosexual marriage should be legalized.
Um, hate to break it to you but marriage isnt a right and has nothing to do with the Constitution. Its a priviledge granted by each state. Each state has its own requirements which may or may not be the same as another state. Each state has its own requirements for divorce which may or may not be the same as another state. BTW-divorce isnt a right either and not protected under the constitution. Many times, people are refused divorce (or have been) which logically would mean marriage isnt a right either.

Also, I like the way to attempted to place the integrity of the Constitution on the line, even when its not the case.
"Let it be understood that those who are not found living as He taught are not Christian- even though they profess with the lips the teaching of Christ." - Justin Martyr  ( c.160 )

“Moral principles do not depend on a majority vote. Wrong is wrong, even if everybody is wrong. Right is right, even if nobody is right.” - Venerable Servant of God, Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

User avatar
Kerdy
Smootchie
Smootchie
Posts: 16961
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: North Carolina

Post by Kerdy » Thu Feb 11, 2010 7:01 pm

TNLawPiper wrote:
Kerdy wrote:
TNLawPiper wrote:
Kerdy wrote:
TNLawPiper wrote:
Kerdy wrote:
Onyx wrote:
Kerdy wrote:
infidel wrote:
To say someone can "recover" from homosexuality like alcoholism is just retarded too.
And yet, it happens everyday. What were you saying about retarded?
This is something I'd like to see some longitudinal research on. By that I mean, it's no good (from an objective point of view) getting the testimony of "recovered" homosexual still in the hot flush of his deliverance story. Researchers would need to follow up on these guys 30 years later. If you did the same thing with alcoholics, you'd find that some remained sober, others didn't. I don't know what you would find with homosexuality.

I understand that Alcoholics Anonymous take the view that a person remains an alcoholic who has abstained from drink, rather than speaking of being cured. The Christian might believe that true healing is possible. But in both cases, they agree that the alcoholism is harmful. So in this respect, the analogy with homosexuality falls down. There is not agreement that homosexuality is bad as there is generally with alcoholism.
Has anyone ever wondered why STD's are only spread among the sexually deviant? If so, the answer is because their actions are WRONG!
Yeah -- no one has ever received AIDS without first having sex with a gay guy.

<redacted_emoji> <redacted_emoji> <redacted_emoji> <redacted_emoji> <redacted_emoji>
And another poster who posts something not related to what I posted. Is this the theme tonight?
Proposition #1: STDs are only spread among the sexually deviant. The implication is that no STD is spread between anyone other than the sexually deviant.

Proposition #2: There are people in monogamous, committed, and heterosexual relationships that have contract HIV and AIDS through other means (e.g., needle pricks, blood transfusions, blood contamination, and bites from infected animals).

I'm sure that you can see why these statements conflict. One statement must be false. Seeing as there is empirical data to support the second statement, the first must necessarily be false. Thus is logic.

For example: x=1 or x=2. x cannot be both 1 and 2, so you determine what x is, and that informs as to whether it's 1 or 2.
I realize this is a little over your head so I wont bother breaking it down for you.
LOGIC FAIL. You cannot refute my post while maintaining the truthfulness of your initial statement.
LOGICAL FAIL: You expected me to continue the debate with you when I have clearly stated my view and supported it with logic and common sense. There is nothing left to say so you can argue alone. I have no intention of refuting your post just as I have no intention of refuting some guy on the corner who talks about his alien abduction.
"Let it be understood that those who are not found living as He taught are not Christian- even though they profess with the lips the teaching of Christ." - Justin Martyr  ( c.160 )

“Moral principles do not depend on a majority vote. Wrong is wrong, even if everybody is wrong. Right is right, even if nobody is right.” - Venerable Servant of God, Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

TNLawPiper
BrotherOfTheBriar YouHeartlessBastards
BrotherOfTheBriar YouHeartlessBastards
Posts: 17269
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by TNLawPiper » Thu Feb 11, 2010 7:04 pm

Kerdy wrote:
TNLawPiper wrote:Can a Christian support the laws of a nation that legalize homosexual, or a nation that does not criminalize other sins?

By the logic of many posts in this thread, the answer to that question is no. I expect you all to rescind any prior patriotic statements.

Human rights being granted to chimpanzees has nothing to do with humans contracting with each other. Incestuous and bigamous relationships are not allowed because incest and bigamy are illegal. If homosexuality were illegal, we'd be discussing a different topic. As it is, homosexual couples are discriminated against by the state that grants exclusive, inalienable rights to married heterosexual couples.

I do not agree with homosexuality, but if our Constitution is to have integrity, homosexual marriage should be legalized.
Um, hate to break it to you but marriage isnt a right and has nothing to do with the Constitution. Its a priviledge granted by each state. Each state has its own requirements which may or may not be the same as another state. Each state has its own requirements for divorce which may or may not be the same as another state. BTW-divorce isnt a right either and not protected under the constitution. Many times, people are refused divorce (or have been) which logically would mean marriage isnt a right either.

Also, I like the way to attempted to place the integrity of the Constitution on the line, even when its not the case.
I quote Loving v. Virginia, in which the Supreme Court of the United States said:
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....

User avatar
SHEMH2004
Elder
Elder
Posts: 505
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 6:00 pm
Location: Rochester, MN
Contact:

Post by SHEMH2004 » Thu Feb 11, 2010 7:04 pm

LushMojo wrote:.....only if both girls are smoking hot.
+1,000,000! ;) ;)

But in all seriousness, NO, a Christian cannot support gay marriage...
SlowToke on 1/6/10:
"...Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy.." Myself on 2/17/10: "Sola Porcus!!"
--James 5:20, 1 Peter 1:13, 1 Corinthians 4:1-5
--Photography Portfolio:
http://uniquetouchphotography.zenfo

TNLawPiper
BrotherOfTheBriar YouHeartlessBastards
BrotherOfTheBriar YouHeartlessBastards
Posts: 17269
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by TNLawPiper » Thu Feb 11, 2010 7:05 pm

Kerdy wrote:LOGICAL FAIL: You expected me to continue the debate with you when I have clearly stated my view and supported it with logic and common sense. There is nothing left to say so you can argue alone. I have no intention of refuting your post just as I have no intention of refuting some guy on the corner who talks about his alien abduction.
Show me where you explained how the sexually conformant contract STDs?

I like your avoidance tactics, but they don't work in logical discussions.

User avatar
Kerdy
Smootchie
Smootchie
Posts: 16961
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: North Carolina

Post by Kerdy » Thu Feb 11, 2010 7:05 pm

TNLawPiper wrote:
Kerdy wrote:
TNLawPiper wrote:Can a Christian support the laws of a nation that legalize homosexual, or a nation that does not criminalize other sins?

By the logic of many posts in this thread, the answer to that question is no. I expect you all to rescind any prior patriotic statements.

Human rights being granted to chimpanzees has nothing to do with humans contracting with each other. Incestuous and bigamous relationships are not allowed because incest and bigamy are illegal. If homosexuality were illegal, we'd be discussing a different topic. As it is, homosexual couples are discriminated against by the state that grants exclusive, inalienable rights to married heterosexual couples.

I do not agree with homosexuality, but if our Constitution is to have integrity, homosexual marriage should be legalized.
Um, hate to break it to you but marriage isnt a right and has nothing to do with the Constitution. Its a priviledge granted by each state. Each state has its own requirements which may or may not be the same as another state. Each state has its own requirements for divorce which may or may not be the same as another state. BTW-divorce isnt a right either and not protected under the constitution. Many times, people are refused divorce (or have been) which logically would mean marriage isnt a right either.

Also, I like the way to attempted to place the integrity of the Constitution on the line, even when its not the case.
I quote Loving v. Virginia, in which the Supreme Court of the United States said:
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....
You must have missed it when I addressed this case previously and laughed at the people who attempt to use it to defend homosexual marriage.
"Let it be understood that those who are not found living as He taught are not Christian- even though they profess with the lips the teaching of Christ." - Justin Martyr  ( c.160 )

“Moral principles do not depend on a majority vote. Wrong is wrong, even if everybody is wrong. Right is right, even if nobody is right.” - Venerable Servant of God, Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

User avatar
Kerdy
Smootchie
Smootchie
Posts: 16961
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: North Carolina

Post by Kerdy » Thu Feb 11, 2010 7:06 pm

TNLawPiper wrote:
Kerdy wrote:LOGICAL FAIL: You expected me to continue the debate with you when I have clearly stated my view and supported it with logic and common sense. There is nothing left to say so you can argue alone. I have no intention of refuting your post just as I have no intention of refuting some guy on the corner who talks about his alien abduction.
Show me where you explained how the sexually conformant contract STDs?

I like your avoidance tactics, but they don't work in logical discussions.

ZZzzzzzzz......

Right after you explain how this

"Has anyone ever wondered why STD's are only spread among the sexually deviant? If so, the answer is because their actions are WRONG!"

Has anything to do with this

"Yeah -- no one has ever received AIDS without first having sex with a gay guy. "
"Let it be understood that those who are not found living as He taught are not Christian- even though they profess with the lips the teaching of Christ." - Justin Martyr  ( c.160 )

“Moral principles do not depend on a majority vote. Wrong is wrong, even if everybody is wrong. Right is right, even if nobody is right.” - Venerable Servant of God, Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

User avatar
Zed
Cross threaded, Self Quoting, One Pluser
Cross threaded, Self Quoting, One Pluser
Posts: 13464
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 6:00 pm
Location: Howard City, Michigan
Contact:

Post by Zed » Thu Feb 11, 2010 7:08 pm

TNLawPiper wrote:Can a Christian support the laws of a nation that legalize homosexual, or a nation that does not criminalize other sins?
no
TNLawPiper wrote:By the logic of many posts in this thread, the answer to that question is no. I expect you all to rescind any prior patriotic statements.
go pound sand. what right do you have to determine someone's patriotism based on your social doctrines?
TNLawPiper wrote:Human rights being granted to chimpanzees has nothing to do with humans contracting with each other. Incestuous and bigamous relationships are not allowed because incest and bigamy are illegal. If homosexuality were illegal, we'd be discussing a different topic. As it is, homosexual couples are discriminated against by the state that grants exclusive, inalienable rights to married heterosexual couples.
homosexuality is not illegal however, sodomy is.

<Of or having to do with the same>- activity is not an inalienable right.
TNLawPiper wrote: I do not agree with homosexuality, but if our Constitution is to have integrity, homosexual marriage should be legalized.
show me where the constitution grants marriage rights? maybe my public lack of education is leaving me in the dark but I'm not aware of it.

The Constitution has it's integrity. The country is losing it's integrity by trying to rewrite it with it's secular, globalist, hedonistic doctrines.
YEAH COBS

TNLawPiper
BrotherOfTheBriar YouHeartlessBastards
BrotherOfTheBriar YouHeartlessBastards
Posts: 17269
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by TNLawPiper » Thu Feb 11, 2010 7:09 pm

Kerdy wrote:
TNLawPiper wrote:
Kerdy wrote:
TNLawPiper wrote:Can a Christian support the laws of a nation that legalize homosexual, or a nation that does not criminalize other sins?

By the logic of many posts in this thread, the answer to that question is no. I expect you all to rescind any prior patriotic statements.

Human rights being granted to chimpanzees has nothing to do with humans contracting with each other. Incestuous and bigamous relationships are not allowed because incest and bigamy are illegal. If homosexuality were illegal, we'd be discussing a different topic. As it is, homosexual couples are discriminated against by the state that grants exclusive, inalienable rights to married heterosexual couples.

I do not agree with homosexuality, but if our Constitution is to have integrity, homosexual marriage should be legalized.
Um, hate to break it to you but marriage isnt a right and has nothing to do with the Constitution. Its a priviledge granted by each state. Each state has its own requirements which may or may not be the same as another state. Each state has its own requirements for divorce which may or may not be the same as another state. BTW-divorce isnt a right either and not protected under the constitution. Many times, people are refused divorce (or have been) which logically would mean marriage isnt a right either.

Also, I like the way to attempted to place the integrity of the Constitution on the line, even when its not the case.
I quote Loving v. Virginia, in which the Supreme Court of the United States said:
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....
You must have missed it when I addressed this case previously and laughed at the people who attempt to use it to defend homosexual marriage.
You didn't address that case, unless you implicitly referred to it via some vague generalization. Yes, I did just look at every post of yours in this thread.

User avatar
Kerdy
Smootchie
Smootchie
Posts: 16961
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: North Carolina

Post by Kerdy » Thu Feb 11, 2010 7:11 pm

Ok, a little frustrated with the grade school arguments so you all will excuse me for not playing with you any more on this thread tonight.

Been real busy dealing with people who attempt to get away with your argument tactics in real life and having to be slammed back in place with reality for the last couple of weeks. A little tired from lack of sleep which makes me prone to rudeness and I dont want to be that way on here.

So, you guys enjoy your faulty, twisted, illogical deviant talking points and argument views, but I am done with it tonight.
"Let it be understood that those who are not found living as He taught are not Christian- even though they profess with the lips the teaching of Christ." - Justin Martyr  ( c.160 )

“Moral principles do not depend on a majority vote. Wrong is wrong, even if everybody is wrong. Right is right, even if nobody is right.” - Venerable Servant of God, Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

Post Reply