So you think gay marriage and bestiality are comparable, huh? I honestly thought us homo-sapiens had past that age long ago. Anyway, you know what, how about we make a list of the differences between bestiality and homosexuality for that hillbilly brain of yours to process:

 

Homosexuality

Two people who feel genuine affection towards each other.

 

Bestiality

When a person attempts to marry an animal, the animal has no say in the matter. It's basically rape.

LukeD...dude, the Bible is considered the Word of God, Period...if your a Christian.  What do you think the Bible is? 

 

I didn't say I hated gays, where are you getting that from.  I think their actions are repugnant, but I don't begrudge the person or think that person is evil.  The Bible also says; hate the sin, love the sinner.  I don't hate anybody.

 

So your argument is way off base and based on something that was never ever stated.

 

DrDetroit

So you think gay marriage and bestiality are comparable, huh? I honestly thought us homo-sapiens had past that age long ago. Anyway, you know what, how about we make a list of the differences between bestiality and homosexuality for that hillbilly brain of yours to process:

 

Homosexuality

Two people who feel genuine affection towards each other.

 

Bestiality

When a person attempts to marry an animal, the animal has no say in the matter. It's basically rape.

 

 

You are lost man...totally lost on what I said and lost on my point.  

 

EDIT:  "Hillbilly  brain"?  Now why do you find it necessary to make a stupid point by calling someone you don't know a derogatory name?  You have no argument at all, you disagree with my opinion, that's fine.  But why do you have to go in the dirt and call me a hillbilly?  You must be a child, as no adult has cause to say something so stupid.  I live in Birmingham Michigan you moron.  

 

Khanage, I apologize if I offended you and your boyfriend/partner.  Muh bad!

 

DrDetroit

Edited February 8, 201412 yr by drdetroit

Marriage itself is for the church to decide, a priest should not be forced to wed anyone he or she does not want to wed for whatever reason, that goes for heterosexual couples as well. A priest should not be forced to wed a racist couple or a black/middle eastern/Asian couple if he or she does not want to either.

 

Personally, I couldn't give a crap about it, your sexuality does not define who you are as a person, I don't care who your partner is as long as you treat that person with respect and love.

 

Speaking from experience, Denmark allowed same-sex "registered partnerships" in 1989. It doesn't really affect anything, non-gays aren't banned from getting married or otherwise discriminated or disadvantaged so it's a bit of a non-issue really, my only concern is that the different religious institutions are allowed to make the decision themselves. I also belive that the government should provide a non-religious alternative that will give any couple the same legal rights and official acknowledgements as a church officiated ceremony, the church can do as it pleases really.

I know many gay people, so I find nothing wrong with it. I personally am gay.

LukeD...dude, the Bible is considered the Word of God, Period...if your a Christian.  What do you think the Bible is? 

 

I didn't say I hated gays, where are you getting that from.  I think their actions are repugnant, but I don't begrudge the person or think that person is evil.  The Bible also says; hate the sin, love the sinner.  I don't hate anybody.

 

So your argument is way off base and based on something that was never ever stated.

 

DrDetroit

 

I personally think it is a book made from paper, much like that magazine, or a news paper. At no point in my life does it ever compare the legislation written by government, it should not ever be enforced in any way and thus should have absolutely no reflection on the general thoughts of life.

 

Basically, keep your religion to yourself, don't use it as a means to judge others. :)

 

I wasn't making an argument against your case, I did read your comments regarding your actual stance on gay marriage and respect that as your view, I was actually bringing out a more open point about the teachings of the bible based on the parts I know of and have read being quoted here.

 

And that point was a question really to everyone of "how do we actually know what the word of God is if it contradicts itself?"

 

Please don't see what I said as an argument against your point as I had no intentions of making it that :)

 

 

Also, if a goat could happily stand next to me in court and say "Yes I consent to this marriage" then yeah I would marry a goat. But as it stands, it cannot. (nor can it consent if it's lay down, lol I made a joke, get it? Jokes are funny :))

I honestly don't care at all.  Doesn't pertain to me so if you want to get married to someone of the opposite sex go for it.  I agree with NB as far as giving the priest the discretion to choose who to marry so as to not go against ones faith, and I say that as a non-religious person.  The main thing I have a problem with is the completely unnecessary over flamboyance in my opinion.  If you're trying to achieve equal rights then stop distancing yourself from straight people by making it blazingly obvious you are different and in turn obnoxiously rubbing your sexuality in everyone's face. You don't see me organizing a "Look At Me I Like Having Sex With Women" pride parade....

I personally think it is a book made from paper, much like that magazine, or a news paper. At no point in my life does it ever compare the legislation written by government, it should not ever be enforced in any way and thus should have absolutely no reflection on the general thoughts of life.

 

Basically, keep your religion to yourself, don't use it as a means to judge others. :)

 

I wasn't making an argument against your case, I did read your comments regarding your actual stance on gay marriage and respect that as your view, I was actually bringing out a more open point about the teachings of the bible based on the parts I know of and have read being quoted here.

 

And that point was a question really to everyone of "how do we actually know what the word of God is if it contradicts itself?"

 

Please don't see what I said as an argument against your point as I had no intentions of making it that :)

 

 

Also, if a goat could happily stand next to me in court and say "Yes I consent to this marriage" then yeah I would marry a goat. But as it stands, it cannot. (nor can it consent if it's lay down, lol I made a joke, get it? Jokes are funny :))

 

 

I hear ya brother.  Many people do think that of the Bible, and I respect that totally.  We're all good!

 

The "how do we know...." question, that has been debated from the beginning.  Remember, the fingerprint of mans immorality has left a mark on the Bible and chapters that have been left out.   That don't mean the Bible, in it's original form, was/is not the word of God.  Faith is believing in something that can't be seen, that's why it's faith.  If you can see it and touch it, then there is no need for faith or believing.

 

Good day,

DrDetroit

Edited February 8, 201412 yr by drdetroit

LukeD...dude, the Bible is considered the Word of God, Period...if your a Christian.  What do you think the Bible is? 

 

I didn't say I hated gays, where are you getting that from.  I think their actions are repugnant, but I don't begrudge the person or think that person is evil.  The Bible also says; hate the sin, love the sinner.  I don't hate anybody.

 

So your argument is way off base and based on something that was never ever stated.

 

DrDetroit

 

 

You are lost man...totally lost on what I said and lost on my point.  

 

EDIT:  "Hillbilly  brain"?  Now why do you find it necessary to make a stupid point by calling someone you don't know a derogatory name?  You have no argument at all, you disagree with my opinion, that's fine.  But why do you have to go in the dirt and call me a hillbilly?  You must be a child, as no adult has cause to say something so stupid.  I live in Birmingham Michigan you moron.  

 

Khanage, I apologize if I offended you and your boyfriend/partner.  Muh bad!

 

DrDetroit

No, I don't know you and I'd never wish to do so, but you're points would imply that you are a hillbilly. If you find it more appropriate, I can call you a redneck. And as for me being a child, what's the last line in your post, before the 'DrDetroit' thing? You were calling me gay, huh? Let's summarise this little conversation here, so first you make a pretty intolerant point that homosexuality is as unethical as bestiality. I reply by implying that your point is poor. You reply by calling my post cogent, sarcastically. I then make an attempt to help you understand the difference between bestiality and homosexuality. You completely bias my point and instead focus on me calling you a hillbilly. Then say I must be a child, then make a gay joke. So far, the judge would seem to be in our favor.

Dude, STFU already with your insults you child!  You have no argument, so you attack me because you don't like my opinion.  You are ignorant and incohearant at best.  I don't give a rats ass what you think pal.  Go fuk a goat dirtbag.

 

Don't get mad at me because you're gay.  It's all good dude.

 

DrDetroit

Its like calling a van a car, same idea but not the right word for it. I personally don't mind whether it happens or not

 

The only thing I don't like about it is that it brings around too many stupid arguments

Edited February 8, 201412 yr by UrbaneDegree18

Guys, tone it down with insulting each other. I don't care who started it, but it needs to cease.

Respect each others opinion whether you agree with it or not.

I hear ya brother.  Many people do think that of the Bible, and I respect that totally.  We're all good!

 

The "how do we know...." question, that has been debated from the beginning.  Remember, the fingerprint of mans immorality has left a mark on the Bible and chapters that have been left out.   That don't mean the Bible, in it's original form, was/is not the word of God.  Faith is believing in something that can't be seen, that's why it's faith.  If you can see it and touch it, then there is no need for faith or believing.

 

Good day,

DrDetroit

 

Another thing is as I said earlier.

There are many versions of the bible out there, and a lot of them will flat out change the original meaning of the verse too, mostly to re-enforce the editor's socio-politically stance too. There is also the question of interpretation too. What it meant then, might have almost zero meaning what was being meant then. People tend to point out that the verses used against Homosexuality in Leviticus (18:22 especially), for example are either victims of a complete rewrite of a more modern edition, or taken out of context (most sources I read about Leviticus 18:22 tend to point out it has more to do with Temple Prostitution than two men getting it on.)

It does tend to be a large problem with most text that is translated widely, especially when the sources are over thousands of years old. In the end, the beauty is that we all can believe what we want.

My view from my first post in this thread is strictly within civil (government) point of view. If Marriage is a religious institution, as their "defenders" state, then I can't understand what business the state has in dabbling in it, especially in a country where the two concepts should be as separate as reasonably can be.

 

I agree with what Nicolai said earlier, I feel that churches should be given freedom who they can and can't marry, and if the state does force them to do so, you can count me in with those who will be very far from impressed (especially as it breaks the 1st Amendment right there if you ask me.)

I don't agree with gay marriage period. Got a problem with that? GFY

I agree Leonov.  A civil union is sufficient and grants all legal rights, same as a married man and woman.  Forcing churches to go against their own belief is reprehensible and violates the 1st Amendment and will not stand.  

 

DrDetroit

My opinion's are like Jay's. One reason why I'm against gay marriage in the US is because on income taxes, there are discounts for married couples. This is because, traditionally, married people had kids, leading to more people paying taxes down the road. 

Yes, gay marriage is a slippery slope. Personally, I don't really care either way...maybe I should though.  I do have my opinion's on the matter though.  

 

But if you follow the logical process, then why can't someone marry their cat or dog?  If two guys can get married simply because they love each other, then the same logic follows; does it not?

 

DrDetroit

Man&Man/Woman&Woman= Consenting adult humans

Man&Woman&Woman&Woman= Consenting adult humans

Man/Woman and child=Not consenting adults

Man/Woman and animal=Not humans

 

I hope you can spot the difference in this

Mark my words here...you will see the scenarios I made played out in a court of law one day.  Someone will make the argument I made and will probably win.  

 

Then I will say "see...I told ya so".

 

EDIT: And...yea, I get your point C13.  I do know how to read and write.  Just wait till it happens though.

 

DrDetroit

Edited February 8, 201412 yr by drdetroit

Wow i remember i had a debate about this with someone couple months back on this forums lol... Just wanted to add that  but just to say something .Please note as a Christian..

 

1) I  Don't Agree of it...

 

2)  Instead of Marriage is should be call Legally Joined. Because the word Marriage is for man and woman.

 

3)  Who Cares. As long no-one Force or try to teach your kids to be Gay... Besides that! its all God business.

 

4) Remember The Entire world will never be gay.. So why even worry about that :) If the Entire World became real well They would have to be a law for every guy to donate there Stuff in a tube every 3 months ... :) ............ But you see my point :)

People should be able to marry the person they love and care about, no matter if their what their gender is or sexuality is.

I think civil unions from the government between same sex couples is A-OK.

 

I think if a church wants to marry same sex couple, that is also A-OK.

 

But if the government were to *force* churches to marry same sex couples, then that isn't okay.  For example, if a same sex couple could prosecute a discrimination case against a church for refusing to marry them, that isn't right.  When same-sex marriage gets written into national law, it should be in a way that protects churches from lawsuits.

But if the government were to *force* churches to marry same sex couples, then that isn't okay.  For example, if a same sex couple could prosecute a discrimination case against a church for refusing to marry them, that isn't right.  When same-sex marriage gets written into national law, it should be in a way that protects churches from lawsuits.

I think you should go back and read what you just said lol.

 

"When same-sex marriage gets written into national law, it should in a way that protects churches from lawsuits"

 

So basically when it becomes legally bound for churches to marry same-sex couples the law should be written to allow the churches to avoid being prosecuted for refusing to follow the law that made it legal? What?

 

I know what you're attempting to say, but it isn't what you actually said lol :)