What's wrong with Gay Marriage?

[antonlavey]

MORE "INDENTURED SERVANTS"

In the following parable, Jesus clearly approves of beating slaves even if they didn't know they were doing anything wrong.
 

    The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it.  "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly.  Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given."  (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

 

[antonlavey]

MORE "INDENTURED SERVANTS"

In the following parable, Jesus clearly approves of beating slaves even if they didn't know they were doing anything wrong.
 

    The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it.  "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly.  Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given."  (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

 

[ill legal operation]

Originally Posted by ATGD7154xBBxMZ

Originally Posted by ILL LEGAL OPERATION

Originally Posted by blackngold1z

Still waiting for a good legal (not religious) reason.
I won't hold my breath tho.

I'm glad you're not waiting to exhale, but if you were - here's what I would say: the legal reason is that by constitutional standards homosexuals are not equally protected under the law they way minorities, foreign aliens, women, and other classes that require strict or intermediate constitutional scrutiny are...any gay issue gets rational basis, and you're never going to beat the state on that battlefield - I never understood why GLAAD didn't put that fight into the forefront instead of worrying about Kobe...
...as far as my personal opinion (that's admittedly based on religion/life experience), here's the deal from my POV: I have no problem at all with two humans in love dedicating their lives to each other - the gray area for me comes when a gay couple wants to call it a "marriage."

From my POV (which is just how I rock, not saying it weighs more than anyone else's) it looks like this: a "marriage" by definition is a sacred covenant between a man, a woman, and God...

...do I have a problem with two gay people wanting to be legally recognized as a unit and receiving the same healthcare/tax break/job benefits as two drunken hetero idiots who choose to get married in Vegas only to get in annulled two weeks later (Britney Spears I'm lookin' at you)? No.

As a matter of public policy, I couldn't possibly care less if a homosexual "civil union" was the legal equivalent to a recognized heterosexual American marriage - but as a matter of religion (which I'm 100% free to be rooted in in this wonderful country of our's) - just don't call it a "marriage," because like I said, by definition...it's not...

...and I know NT, so lemme answer these questions before they're even asked:

1) No, as a Christian I don't believe I'm any better than a gay person...because contrary to popular belief, "Christian" and "gay" are not mutually exclusive. For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God... The same way someone with a Bible can tell you, "You shouldn't be gay" is the same way Jesus can tell me, "Lil _, you 'sposed to be a virgin - and when I go to your internet history, why I see the name 'Jasmine Bryne' so much?"

2) I've seen you on NT cussin' at mods/admins and beastin' over big booties like everybody else - where you get off thinkin' you somehow above everybody else?

...I'm not.

A) So then this issue is as trivial as @!$* for you. Dealing with semantics here since your subjective definition of marriage isn't the constitutional one or even techically the objectional one. 

B) Also that legal reason is more of an excuse than a legal standing to oppose it.

A) Like I said my dude, my definition was based solely on what I believe and what my life has shown me - in no way, shape, or form is my definition the end all/be all decisive verdict on what the word "marriage" means...
B) I never said it was right, but that legal reason is what runs the country - don't like it? Holla @ your Congessman/Senator or the The Supreme Court - all I was trying to do is put the law of our land in layman's terms so other NTers could understand it or look it up for themselves... 

 

[ill legal operation]

Originally Posted by ATGD7154xBBxMZ

Originally Posted by ILL LEGAL OPERATION

Originally Posted by blackngold1z

Still waiting for a good legal (not religious) reason.
I won't hold my breath tho.

I'm glad you're not waiting to exhale, but if you were - here's what I would say: the legal reason is that by constitutional standards homosexuals are not equally protected under the law they way minorities, foreign aliens, women, and other classes that require strict or intermediate constitutional scrutiny are...any gay issue gets rational basis, and you're never going to beat the state on that battlefield - I never understood why GLAAD didn't put that fight into the forefront instead of worrying about Kobe...
...as far as my personal opinion (that's admittedly based on religion/life experience), here's the deal from my POV: I have no problem at all with two humans in love dedicating their lives to each other - the gray area for me comes when a gay couple wants to call it a "marriage."

From my POV (which is just how I rock, not saying it weighs more than anyone else's) it looks like this: a "marriage" by definition is a sacred covenant between a man, a woman, and God...

...do I have a problem with two gay people wanting to be legally recognized as a unit and receiving the same healthcare/tax break/job benefits as two drunken hetero idiots who choose to get married in Vegas only to get in annulled two weeks later (Britney Spears I'm lookin' at you)? No.

As a matter of public policy, I couldn't possibly care less if a homosexual "civil union" was the legal equivalent to a recognized heterosexual American marriage - but as a matter of religion (which I'm 100% free to be rooted in in this wonderful country of our's) - just don't call it a "marriage," because like I said, by definition...it's not...

...and I know NT, so lemme answer these questions before they're even asked:

1) No, as a Christian I don't believe I'm any better than a gay person...because contrary to popular belief, "Christian" and "gay" are not mutually exclusive. For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God... The same way someone with a Bible can tell you, "You shouldn't be gay" is the same way Jesus can tell me, "Lil _, you 'sposed to be a virgin - and when I go to your internet history, why I see the name 'Jasmine Bryne' so much?"

2) I've seen you on NT cussin' at mods/admins and beastin' over big booties like everybody else - where you get off thinkin' you somehow above everybody else?

...I'm not.

A) So then this issue is as trivial as @!$* for you. Dealing with semantics here since your subjective definition of marriage isn't the constitutional one or even techically the objectional one. 

B) Also that legal reason is more of an excuse than a legal standing to oppose it.

A) Like I said my dude, my definition was based solely on what I believe and what my life has shown me - in no way, shape, or form is my definition the end all/be all decisive verdict on what the word "marriage" means...
B) I never said it was right, but that legal reason is what runs the country - don't like it? Holla @ your Congessman/Senator or the The Supreme Court - all I was trying to do is put the law of our land in layman's terms so other NTers could understand it or look it up for themselves... 

 

[bdubnyckid]

Be careful now...God's are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.

 

[pusha tim]

the wrong is when two dudes kiss each other in the end. i dont know about females.

 

[pusha tim]

the wrong is when two dudes kiss each other in the end. i dont know about females.

 

[bdubnyckid]

Be careful now...God's are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by Pusha Tim

the wrong is when two dudes kiss each other in the end. i dont know about females.

Best argument in this thread against homosexuality, and I'm not even being sarcastic

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by Pusha Tim

the wrong is when two dudes kiss each other in the end. i dont know about females.

Best argument in this thread against homosexuality, and I'm not even being sarcastic

 

[bdubnyckid]

Originally Posted by Pusha Tim

the wrong is when two dudes kiss each other in the end. i dont know about females.

 

[bdubnyckid]

Originally Posted by Pusha Tim

the wrong is when two dudes kiss each other in the end. i dont know about females.

 

[ohdannyboy]

double

 

[heavenlee777]

Originally Posted by blackngold1z

Still waiting for a good legal (not religious) reason.
I won't hold my breath tho.

I am always in and out of politics, so I'm not an expert by any means, but here is what I found online.
In my opinion, it's not a good legal reason but it's still a legal reason. 

It is against the constitution since Bill Clinton passed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, which prohibits same-sex marriage.

It also says that "the federal government defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one women". (Wikipedia)

This seems to be the only legit legal reason. There may be more but I wasn't researching too in depth.

I've heard from before about people talking about some economic reason, but I forget.

Others say that many people are concerned with parenting, and how same-sex parents cannot raise a child correctly.

Everything else seems to just point to religious reasons, or people just hating on LBGT people.

In all honesty, same-sex marriage should be legal.

Like I said before, it seems that the only people who want it illegal are homophobes, far right conservatives, and extremely religious people.

I don't think there really is any legit reason as to why it should be illegal.

Here is a great video I watched a few months back on this topic.

 

[ohdannyboy]

double

 

[heavenlee777]

Originally Posted by blackngold1z

Still waiting for a good legal (not religious) reason.
I won't hold my breath tho.

I am always in and out of politics, so I'm not an expert by any means, but here is what I found online.
In my opinion, it's not a good legal reason but it's still a legal reason. 

It is against the constitution since Bill Clinton passed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, which prohibits same-sex marriage.

It also says that "the federal government defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one women". (Wikipedia)

This seems to be the only legit legal reason. There may be more but I wasn't researching too in depth.

I've heard from before about people talking about some economic reason, but I forget.

Others say that many people are concerned with parenting, and how same-sex parents cannot raise a child correctly.

Everything else seems to just point to religious reasons, or people just hating on LBGT people.

In all honesty, same-sex marriage should be legal.

Like I said before, it seems that the only people who want it illegal are homophobes, far right conservatives, and extremely religious people.

I don't think there really is any legit reason as to why it should be illegal.

Here is a great video I watched a few months back on this topic.

 

[ScroogeMcBuckz]

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

 

[ScroogeMcBuckz]

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

 

[ohdannyboy]

Originally Posted by bdubnyckid

Be careful now...God's are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.

My god reigns supreme homie. Science is yet to disprove anything about my god.

 

[ohdannyboy]

Originally Posted by bdubnyckid

Be careful now...God's are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.

My god reigns supreme homie. Science is yet to disprove anything about my god.

 

[ohdannyboy]

Originally Posted by ohdannyboy

Originally Posted by Its That Dude

Where in the Bible does it forbid marriage between two gay people or members of the same sex?

It doesn't. But homosexuality is frowned upon and against the religion. Gay marriage was unthinkable back then, so there was no need to address it.
Times were different back then people. A lot of you non believers don't seem to realize that. 

AntonLaVey wrote:

---

RAPE IN THE BIBLE........believe me there's  A LOT of rape in the bible. You don't wanna go there.

2) Murder, rape and pillage of the Midianites    (Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)

    They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men.  All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle.  They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword.  Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder.  They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived.  After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.

 

    Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp.  But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle.  "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded.  "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor.  They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people.  Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man.  Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.
They CLEARLY don't need to use the word rape for anybody with an ounce of reading comprehension to know what they meant. If you need anymore evidence I'll be glad to post some. COME AT ME BRO.

This may imply rape in today's times, but not back then. Fornication is a sin, so why would rape be tolerated? The most logical reason for them to keep the virgin girls was because they were still pure and could marry their sons and become good christian wives. You have to remember, the bible wasn't written yesterday. Times were a lot different back then.

 

[ohdannyboy]

Originally Posted by ohdannyboy

Originally Posted by Its That Dude

Where in the Bible does it forbid marriage between two gay people or members of the same sex?

It doesn't. But homosexuality is frowned upon and against the religion. Gay marriage was unthinkable back then, so there was no need to address it.
Times were different back then people. A lot of you non believers don't seem to realize that. 

AntonLaVey wrote:

---

RAPE IN THE BIBLE........believe me there's  A LOT of rape in the bible. You don't wanna go there.

2) Murder, rape and pillage of the Midianites    (Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)

    They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men.  All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle.  They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword.  Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder.  They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived.  After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.

 

    Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp.  But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle.  "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded.  "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor.  They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people.  Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man.  Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.
They CLEARLY don't need to use the word rape for anybody with an ounce of reading comprehension to know what they meant. If you need anymore evidence I'll be glad to post some. COME AT ME BRO.

This may imply rape in today's times, but not back then. Fornication is a sin, so why would rape be tolerated? The most logical reason for them to keep the virgin girls was because they were still pure and could marry their sons and become good christian wives. You have to remember, the bible wasn't written yesterday. Times were a lot different back then.

 

[ill legal operation]

Originally Posted by AceBoogie

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

And see that's the thing, like King David - who God Himself described as "a man after His own heart" - I've been sexually immoral in the hetero sense entirely too many times...
...that's why I can't throw rocks at gay folks - when it's all said and done and I'm face to face w/God, I'ma be begging for mercy like everybody else....actually, I'll be begging far more than most.

That's where Jesus comes in, but that's a totally different thread...

 

[ill legal operation]

Originally Posted by AceBoogie

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

And see that's the thing, like King David - who God Himself described as "a man after His own heart" - I've been sexually immoral in the hetero sense entirely too many times...
...that's why I can't throw rocks at gay folks - when it's all said and done and I'm face to face w/God, I'ma be begging for mercy like everybody else....actually, I'll be begging far more than most.

That's where Jesus comes in, but that's a totally different thread...

 

[its that dude]

Originally Posted by ohdannyboy

Originally Posted by ohdannyboy

Originally Posted by Its That Dude


Where in the Bible does it forbid marriage between two gay people or members of the same sex?

It doesn't. But homosexuality is frowned upon and against the religion. Gay marriage was unthinkable back then, so there was no need to address it.
Times were different back then people. A lot of you non believers don't seem to realize that. 

So...you're just guessing that this is what Jesus would have wanted, even though Jesus never mentioned anything about homosexuality?