Open to gay youth teens and young adults, parents and eductors. we have guest speakers and outings and we plays movies and other great stuff so please check us out. it a great place to make friends. Life get better when you check us out and start make good friends. Next Meeting is Feb 29, 2012 (Wed) 6:30PM to 8:30PM NORTH COUNTY BRANCH OF THE HUNTERDON COUNTY LIBRARY 65 Halsted Street Clinton, NJ 08809 ALOT OF FREE DOOR PRIZES IT ALL FREE AND FOOD AND DRINKS GLBT OF HUNTERDON COUNTY OF NJ.COM
@Jerseyirish you truly are ignorant. Marriage is a bond, and just having a partner doesnt mean NEARLY as much, because there are councillors for marriage, there are gays the military now, and everyone like you needs to get that there IS no difference between us.
im not gay and i am a Christian, but wasn't America founded on the idea of freedom? seems to me like that's a greatest struggle. slaves, women, now gay people? dont just give freedom to some people and take it away from others. and how shameful for these people to clap when this was denied? this is some peoples life. never celebrate someone loss.
@summerrenee92 Gays have freedom in Jersey. Being denied a piece of paper that says 'you're married' is not a denial of freedom. They get the same benefits with civil unions. Your logic is flawed and dispicaple to compare to the horrors of slavery. We have bigger issues here to be concerned with.
This is not the end! New York suffered the same setback before Marriage Equality became law just in time for the Pride Parade! As a native Jerseyan Straight Ally I feel this will have been Governor Cuomo's greatest achievement. Though it's unlikely that Governor Christie will follow suit, IT'S STILL GONNA HAPPEN, FOLKS!!!
This made me cry. Watching the religious groups band together under a banner hate, laughing and cheering together as the minority they trampled wept... sometimes it's just too much. Like the one guy said, this isn't a just a political issue, its people's lives. I hope all those right wing religious nut jobs burn in their respective hells for their cruelty.
However it was really inspiring to see how people keep hope alive in the face of each oppressive blow. I am amazed by their strength.
Would you hate your child for being Gay? Would you rather die than have a Gay Humanitarian save your life. Would you rather have a bad straight neighbor or a great Gay one?
This is about the quality of how we treat each other and respecting the rights of everyone........These are Gods teachings.
@tique1227 Human rights allow you to be homosexual--not attain marriage. You have to have a long-term view to understand why legalizing gay marriage is a poor idea. We already have a decaying society, with broken families and under confident teens, and confusing people about gender roles will not help us overcome this challenge. Furthermore, with no cure for AIDs, making homosexuality mainstream through gay marriage will only infect more gays and straight people, which we all want to avoid.
Men and woman can spread aides and beat each other up Duh, but worst yet, they have loads of kids they can't take care of! Why don't you Google notable gays, great people that have done amazing things! Open you mind before you open your mouth! Let me guess, you are a pretentious religious freak right?
You just can't deal with the fact that AIDS spread through the majority of the gay community at a lightening speed and the straight community at a snails pace can you?
In fact to this day a straight person with AIDS is rare compare to a gay person with AIDS.
This is 2010 and it is time we wake up and give Gay marriage a chance to flourish! Gay people make wonderful parents, pay taxes, and contribute so much to our society and work force! More than you know!!!
This has nothing to do with religion, it is purely a human right! Who are we to judge others happiness!
ught...very soon same sex marriage will be legal in all of Mexico, in Argentina, in Portugal and in an ex-soviet country somewhere in East Europe called Slovenia. Not to mention that it is already legal in South Africa and Spain. So the USA is just being irrational and lagging off behind. There's no logical argument in this issue. Just plain old religious-based bigotry, FROM CERTAIN BUT NOT ALL religions. So....support gay marriage. duh.
like this is surprising. every single time this comes up it rightfully gets voted down by the people or their representatives. and its not going to change. the same people who are voting it down are the liberal hippies of yesteryear. why would anyone think that the young liberal hippies of today are going to be any different. almost all young people are liberals and when they grow up almost all come to their senses and adopt a more conservative approach in both political and societal values.
" and no, you don't know God's side of this picture because you reject the "Fairy tale.""
So because I reject his existence now, I didn't know what it was like to believe in him when I accepted him then, got baptised then, prayed to him over every little thing then, etc. So, by your logic, becoming a skeptic changes the space-time continuum?... Yeah, like I said, I think I know both sides of the picture better than you. Especially with how you prove how not objective you are at all.
" Scientists were wrong in the past, they are not infallible."
True, but I don't think you understand how science is usually wrong and corrected. Once a time the atom was considered the smallest substance, then the atom was spit and it lost this title. Didn't change the fact that the atom existed. This same line of reason goes to what I've cited. Perhaps things more will be found, slight corrections made, but the primary established facts won't change. And they conflict with christianity.
In Gen. 1:24-25, God states that every creature reproduced after its kind. This statement is made 9 times in Gen. 1. This fact was not discovered until 1862. Up until that time it was considered a scientific fact that frogs arose from stagnant water, worms from manure, mice from warm, moist soil, insects from dew, and maggots from rotting meat. This observable scientific fact was disproven by Louis Pasteur and the Bible was demonstrated to have been right. This discredited theory was known as...
1. Kinds are not species. 2. Just because something was believed to be true during the majority of the dark ages and the beginning of the Age of Enlightenment does not make it a scientific fact. To become a scientific fact the assertion in question must endure the trials of the scientifi method. 3. the bible states that animals are "kinds" which is not right nor a scientific term at all. Animals are species.
...spontaneous generation. It must be rembered that Darwin's theory of evolution was born before spontaneous generation was disproven. Evolutionists often take the small changes or adaptations within a kind or species and try to argue that this proves evolution. All creationists recognize small variations within the created kinds. God placed the ability to adapt within the created kinds so that they could survive in different climates and circumstances. The fact that men may grow taller, that...
"It must be rembered that Darwin's theory of evolution was born before spontaneous generation was disproven."
Probably the biggest nonsequitur argumentitive fallacy I've ever seen.
"Evolutionists often take the small changes or adaptations within a kind or species and try to argue that this proves evolution.""
Probably because that's what evolution is, small changes accumulating into bigger ones over a log period, with exception to your mention of "kinds" again.
a dog's fur may grow thicker, or that a finch's beak may grow longer hardly provides any evidence that fish evolved into amphibians, amphibians evolved into reptiles, reptiles into mammals and birds, or that molecules evolved into man. There are strict genetic limits of adaption or variation within created kinds.
Except you ignore the evidence that shows exactly that, like genetic and fossilized evidence connecting dinosaurs and birds or humans and apes. Atavistic genes in whales to create legs, or humans to create tails, or chicken to create teeth. That there exists a duckbilled mammal that lays eggs, mammals that live in the ocean or a mammal that flies. There's plenty of evidence overriding you assertion about genetic limits.
"Once the New Testament was finished, that sign was taken away. Be objective"
Prov 30:6. Who's not being objective out of us two? Stop making things up.
And why don't you give a reason why any religion could be an objective position, because there most certainly isn't any objective reason to follow any of them based on evidence or reason.
That's why it is called faith. BTW, why do you use a fairy tale to debunk a fairy tale? As regards to Mark 16, a christian cannot drink poison and not be harmed today, so it was only for that time.
Screw it, I'll bite, again, since YOU brought it up, because this exchange of comments we've been having at least temporarily cures my boredom. What makes more sense; that an all powerful deity created animals like whales and dolphins to live in the sea despite being air breathing mammals with lungs, or that they adapted to a new environment over the course of millions of years? That dinosaurs existed in Jesus' time, or that they went excinct with the remaining smaller ones evolving into birds?
Do you really think that such a divinely intelligent being designed bats to fly despite having the wrong bone structure for it, or the platypus to lay eggs despite being a mammal? You believe the geographical layering of fossils is caused by animals competing for higher ground during the great flood despite their being turtle and snail fossils on higher geographical layering than pteradactyls, apes and horses?
that mankind cannot fulfill 10 simple commandments. No one is good enough to enter heaven. That is why Jesus came to die as a perfect sacrifice to pay the penalty for our sins. Yet, all you want to argue about is polygamy and side issues. No answer I could give you would suffice because we don't share a common ground of thought: The Bible is my authority for life. If I tasted an orange and you never had an orange, how could I describe it? I could not unless I gave you one to taste. Step out in
"No. I know that the Bible is real because of the answered prayers in Jesus' name. "
You mean those prayers in which God answers in "maybe", "yes", and "no" to mundane request which would gather the same results from praying to anything? Yet prayer has never restored an amputee.
" If I tasted an orange and you never had an orange, how could I describe it? I could not unless I gave you one to taste"
Former christian here. I think I know both sides of this picture more than you do.
"Yet prayer has never restored an amputee." How would you what the greatest need for an amputee is? Maybe it is to get rid of pride, or bitterness, things that only God would know. You were never a believer, because if you really knew how much Jesus loves you, you would never have rejected Him and no, you don't know God's side of this picture because you reject the "Fairy tale."
" How would you what the greatest need for an amputee is?"
The fact that limbs are essential to live a productive life without assistance, and you still didn't answer the question. "Maybe it is to get rid of pride, or bitterness, things that only God would know."
I doubt that's what these guys prayed for which was the very premise of your assertion. It only proves that prayers go unanswered, and anything you thought had to do with a prayer probably didn't.
I mean if these guys are praying for limbs yet get something else, how is that evidence for prayer?
" You were never a believer, because if you really knew how much Jesus loves you, you would never have rejected Him"
This is only true if God is real. So you can stop the circular arguments, and stop begging the question because the obvious possible alternative is that I don't believe because he isn't. Once again, who is the one not being objective here?
faith. Search the other side of the argument and don't be biased. The possibility exsists that you could be wrong. The Mark scripture where the apostles would drink poison and not be harmed was true-only for them and at that time. Why? The New Testament was not wriiten so non-believers would see that these men had authority. Once the New Testament was finished, that sign was taken away. Be objective. Scientists were wrong in the past, they are not infallible.
"Search the other side of the argument and don't be biased."
Uh, Mr.Pot, in this entire comment section you've done nothing but dismiss everything everyone has asserted with christian rhetoric.
"was true-only for them and at that time."
No it wasn't, and Jesus phrases it specifically to encompass more than just the apostles. "And these signs shall follow them that believe.." which in context with Mark 16:15 & 16 clearly refers to his future followers and not the apostles.
It is obvious that you don't believe the Bible. The possibility exsists that you are reading it as an intellectual rather than as someone who sincerely wishes to know the truth. If the Bible is not true, then i have been a fool. But if the Bible is true, than you have a lot more to lose: an eternity in hell. Do you think I hate you that I would want you to avoid that fate? No. I know that the Bible is real because of the answered prayers in Jesus' name. Keep looking, the Bible's main message is
"The possibility exsists that you are reading it as an intellectual rather than as someone who sincerely wishes to know the truth."
This sentence contradicts itself.
"if the Bible is true, than you have a lot more to lose:."
But if their exists a God who eternally punishes people for irrashionally believing in christianity and other relions while rewarding skeptics? Who loses then? Oh, you. These stupid hypotheticals work both ways.
That out of the way, I love how you have run away from the question I posed by begging the question, making assumptions about me, attacking my character with Bible verses, and dismissing me as hopeless even though the subject was never about me in the first place. Some real grade F debate tactics you got there, and all because I tripped you up and called you out on a bunch of baseless assertions you made up. Now are you going to get back on point, or continue ignoring the topic at hand?
Once again in deut and lev there are laws regulating slave labor but nothing outlawing it. Such as Lev 25 44-46, deut 20 10-18, and even in 1 Peter 2:18-25 with 1 tim 6:1. Nothing needed twisting. It's all there for you to read.
Subjects that the bible condones; polygamy, incestuous relations with ones own daughters, slavery, other forms of incest, the silence and submission of women, yet this is the disgusting text where christians and mormons siphon off some sense of "moral fiber" that prevents them from allowing gays to marry?
Nothing to twist. It's all there. Verses in deuteronomy merely regulate guidelines for polygamy, but it isn't outlawed. Lot knocked up his daughter, justifiabely as among the forbidden relationships in Lev and Deut. there is nothing mentioned about father and daughter relationships being forbidden, nor cousin, nor nieces, not to mention Abraham marrying his half sister. Then there's 1tim 2 11-15; 1cor 14 34-35 ; and deut 22 28-29 which condones the inequality and oppression of women.
"There is nothing mentioned about father and daughter relationships being forbidden..." How about Lev. 18:6-20?Abraham married his half sister before the Mosiac Law was given. Lot was drunk and his daughters took advantage of the siuation. Though his daughters came out of Sodom, the sexual immorality practiced there influenced them to commit such a wicked act. Their offspring was troublesome to Israel for a long time.
Nope, nothing mentioned about father and daughter, though every other act of incest, minus sex with a 1st cousin and niece, is mentioned. Why is that? Why is only the act within Lot and his daughters carried out the only exeption, besides 1st cousins and nieces? And what does it matter when Abraham did the act when it was clearly always a sin, wasn't it? Kain's homicidal act was clearly wrong despite this too correct?
Lev. 18:6>None of you shall approach to any that is NEAR OF KIN, to uncover their nahedness: I am the LORD.-Does not the father daughter relationship include near of kin? Abraham's marriage did not violate the law of Moses because it did not come until 400 years later. How else could the world be populated with only the children of Adam and Eve? The pre flood world was vastly different than the world today.
You're ignoring the fact that the verse labels off every thing considered "near of kin" immediately afterwards just to be clear. Apparently, father and direct daughter isn't so, even though mother and son IS in fact listed.
And are you saying that God's laws, and what he considers sin, are subject to change depending on the contex and era? If you are, I can't see how you expect anyone to take any christian seriously when they declare homosexuality as forbidden now as it was 2000 years ago.
Then the question becomes: does the father-daughter relationship becomes "near of kin"? Just because the Bible mentions ploygamy does not mean that God condones it. When God created the world, there was a water vapor surrounding the earth, giving it a greenhouse effect: No polar ice caps, no 4 seasons, constant temp. of 75 degrees, rich vegetation, docile, non venemous animals, and humans living long time. There was no radiation because of the water vapor. DNA was not damaged thereby allowing
"Then the question becomes: does the father-daughter relationship becomes "near of kin"?"
That was the question that Deut 18:6 already answered in it's blatant omission.
"Just because the Bible mentions ploygamy does not mean that God condones it. "
That would be true if it was JUST mention it. However, it is mentioned, regulated, demanded in one context, and a practiced act with many of God's followers without any declarations against it as being evil or wrong. That's condoning it.
God hates divorce but mankind practices it. That does not make divorce right, does it? Every time polygamy is mentioned, bad things happen. Jesus is to be married to his bride (not brides) the church. It was Adam and Eve, not Adam, Eve, Mary, Susan and so on. Mankind perverted what God had created. That aside, how do you get to heaven?
"Every time polygamy is mentioned, bad things happen"
Even though that's not true, why doesn't it disturb you that polygamy was neither outlawed nor considered a sin.
And what does Adam and Eve have to do with it? By that logic you can ridicule a lot of things; cars,"it was Adam and Eve. Not Adam and Even and a mini van." Housing, "It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Eve in the garden, not Adam and Even in the house." Clothes, "It was Adam and Eve naked, not Adam and Eve clothed."
brothers to marry sisters or nieces. After the flood, the water vapor collapsed, the earth shifted so that we have 4 seasons, polar ice caps, and the age of man decreased from living hundreds of years to less than 100 years. By the time of Moses, the DNA chromosones had changed that inter family relationship could not produce healhty children. That is why a brother could not marry his sister. You don't go to hell because you'r gay, you go to hell beacause u didn't believe what God said about it.
Except you made all of this up. Nothing in the bible gives this as an explanation at all. Not only do you speak herecy against your religion by adding to God's word prov. 30:6, but you completely show you have no grasp for science as well.
Really? Other planets have water vapors surrounding it. Whenever animals or humans die, carbon 14 is released into the atmosphere. The amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere points to a young earth (not billions of years old). The world wide flood is well documented. The Miami Herald cited scientist who say that the polar ice caps were once tropical. But of course they are wrong. You were there, right?
Rather than point out how much of that you made up, and how ID was rejected in court as not science and by every peer review journal it was submitted to why don't we stay on the subject and not derail the conversation?
Here's the underlining point. You pulled that explanation out of your ass. It isn't in the bible, it is herecy to the bible, and that still leaves you to explain if one law could change depending on the era why should we assume homosexuality is still wrong 2000 years later?
Because homosexuality is condemned in both the old and new testaments. Lets not get nasty here. We are just talking. There are a lot of things not known about our universe, but one thing is known, mankind is sinful and that has seperated us from God, Jesus came to die for us that whosoever believed in Him should not perish. One day you can bring those arguments to God, but if you think that being gay does not violate His word, than you have the wrong view of God, not me.
You seem rather daft in thinking that we were ever talking about the bibles validity. No, it's all bullshit, and noone is sinful because sin doesn't exist. And even if you believe that garbage, there are some churches that believe gay marriage was only bad in that cultural context. No. We're talking about hyposcrites like you who can't answer give straight answers to hard questions such as "Why is it not bad to practice polygamy and some forms of incest, yet bad to practice homosexuality."
Why the bad words? It is because there is hatred in your heart. I have already explained it but you refuse to understand. 1 Cor. 2:14>But the natural (guided by human emotions) man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness (to use your words:BS) unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. You expect to face God one day with that argument? Good luck. God said man is sinful. DId He lie? Have I become your enemy because I tell you truth
You got that all out of me declaring the bible as bullshit; euphemisms being wrong, a myth, a fairytale, bogus, fiction, etc. or did you misinterpret my obviously conveyed fustration with you dodging the question-which you STILL did- as hatred for a guy I don't believe in? Is that possible? Further, do you expect to convince me the thing I declared as bullshit (see euphemisms) with very text from the bullshit in question(see begging the question) (see circular argument)?
The bottom line is that the Holy Spirit is convicting you of sin and that is why you are reacting so violently. Again, why the bad words? Rom. 1:21-22>Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. The Bible sure described you all right
So at this point you are going to cover your ears and preach bible verses while refusing to answer the question while simultaneously creating strawman arguments of me that even more sadly you need to beg the question to even defeat an argument you made up. Nice
Are you going to answer the question or waste time preaching bible verse I don't believe in to distract from the fact that you don't have an answer?
Even if the answer I gave would satisfy you, you would not repent. Better re-read the answers I already gave but I doubt it would benefit you because you are so engrossed in beliveing that the Bible is wrong. God help you.
This is how I know you weren't even paying attetion. The question had nothing to do with me justifying myself, but any believer justifying THEMSELVES in their stance against gay marriage because the bible said so when the biblical laws regulates and allow polygamy(as I've sourced), demands sexism (right in genesis even 3:16, and also previously sourced), allows forms of incest (also sourced), and slavery (also sourced).
And why do you think pro-polgamy laws no longer applies, yet anti-gay do?
Rom.1:26-27>For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. You need to repent and come to Jesus.
I can't because the bible is a fairy tale. You can't repent to imaginary things.
You on the other hand need to wise up and realize that your hypocritical sect of the christian religion has no place in politics nor in the lives of gay couples when the bible codones slavery, polygamy, forms of incest, and sexism.
That is your opinion and it is obvious that no matter what argument is brought up against it, no matter how convincing, you are bias towards it. Your mind is already made up. You are not seeking truth, you just want justification for your lifestyle. You won't find it in the Bible-repent before it is too late. You really believe that Jesus condones slavey, polygamy, forms of incest and sexism? God help you.
Calculations based upon the rate of influx of helium into our atmosphere, the decay of the earth's magnetic field, the imbalance of carbon-14 and carbon-12, the decay of the earth's spin, ocean chemical concentrations, continental erosion rates, ocean sediment levels and many other evidences all point to the earth being just a few thousand years old.
No it doesn't. You won't find any credible scientist asserting this nor any peer reviewed and approved paper arguing such a laughable idea when all dating methods and the geographical layering point towards the earth being billions of years old. I've already told you this.
There is no evidence for evolution in the fossil record of the past. Evolutionists do not have one rel or proven example of evolution between any two species in the entire fossil record, not one. I will stick with the Bible's view of creation.
The Bible is a fairy tale? It seems that you use a fairy tale to debunk a fairy tale. Is not that circular reasoning? BTW, is there any New Testament scripture that approves polygamy?
"The Bible is a fairy tale? It seems that you use a fairy tale to debunk a fairy tale. Is not that circular reasoning?"
Fairytale? Do you mean that I cited Mark 16:17-18 and the fact that christians very much do die of poison like everyone else? Then no. That is not circular reasoning, as the bible fails to meet even it's own standards based on real events.
" BTW, is there any New Testament scripture that approves polygamy? "
Jesus said nothing on polygamy to change it's status.
As polygamy, the evil line of Cain produced Lamech who married two wives. The godly line of Seth did not practice polygamy. Also, Deut. 17:17 does not allow polygamy. David and Solomon disobeyed this command and paid dearly for it. Solomon's wives led him away from God and Absalom, David's son, slept with his fathers concubines and wives, humiliating David.
Deut 17 17 is a regulation on polygamy. Not an outlawing of it, and more specifically as an admonishment for heirs to the throne not to take betroth too many women.
However, Exodus 21:10 and deut 21: 15-17 clearly condone and regulate the practice, while deut 25 5-10 expects it in this context else shame your entire lineage.
And seriously, fact check next time. Don't just throw the specific excerpt out so disingenuously. You clearly read that Deut 17:17 were laws only pertaining to the king. Polygamy was fair game, with minor regulations, to everyone else. Your bible condones this.
As far as women are concerned, there is no oppression nor inequality between man and woman. There is an order though. As Chrsit is the head of the church, the man is the head of the woman. If the men were to treat the woman the way God wanted them to tb treated, you wouldn't have divorce. If a husband would love his wife, the wife would submit lovingly to her husband. Eph. 5:22-25. The word "submit" means to respondto your own husband as unto the Lord. If no love, then no submission.
We have ourselves a contradiction, and an extreme case of cognitive dissonance.
"means respond unto your own husband as unto the Lord"
You mean that guy who wants his followers to love and obey him else he'll send you to hell? Sounds pretty oppresive to me if any man told a woman he would burn the crap out of her should she not love him. Though that's a husband you're talking about. I mentioned sexism as a whole.
"Normal people" are people who don't engage in, or support, deviant sexual behavior. As an illustration, look at quleghy's posts, he believes that both homosexual and incestuous behavior is acceptable: quleughy said "Incest?.... I'm not against it." That is abnormal.
This isn't complicated Kevstar.
If you need more help with defining normal people, consider this... If don't have the intellectual capacity to understand what is "normal", then you don't fall into that category.
LOL RAGE SOME MORE. Lol the "vast majority" (Which it really isn't vast) Are just plain stupid my friend ;D their the ignorant ones. Wake up and smell the fucking roses :D
Are you trying to prove something to me? Ok fine. Here's what you've proven. You've proven to me that the "VAST" majority of the population is brainwashed by religion, chooses hate over love and doesn't think twice about peoples' feelings. That is what you have proven.
Wrong. Look at the states like New Hampshire and Massachusetts. They allow gay marriage. Oh wait...what's that? Oh...they also have the lowest divorce rates in the entire country? Wow..that's very interesting.
There's more to it then lust huh? Imbecile. Wake up. Look around you. LOL It's an animalistic behavior?! Then WTF do you call heterosexuality??? Non animalistic???? I hope you know, we are animals.
@Kevstar19 new hampshire and massachusetts never put the subject of gay marriage up for a vote or the people would have voted it down just as in the other 29 states that homos tried to firce thier lifestyle on the rest of the population.
LMFAO Are you fucking stupid? New Hampshire and Mass have gay marriage. Lmao you are stupid beyond belief. This is why your arguments have no validity! You don't even know anything about the subject. Please sir try again.
Oh and my good sir don't you worry. I was once Catholic. My parents are still Catholic. I bare no grudges against religious folk. (Though my parents agree that gay marriage is fine.) But it occured to me one day that religion is quite stupid in some ways.
God is all powerful, almighty, he is the most UNDERSTANDING thing in the universe. So, why would a being so mighty...HATE SOMETHING AS SIMPLE AS TWO GUYS FUCKING. IT MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE.
Do you really think the most omnipotent being would hate something like love? So who the fuck cares if they can't reproduce. FINE, then don't allow old people or infertile couples to marry. Love is love. Stop denying that "Its different then straight marriage" ITS NOT. Get over yourself. And grow the fuck up.
Saying that a man and a woman uniting is the same thing as a man and a man uniting is absurd. So is the claim where you say that 50% is not a majority. I am just trying to help you out.
Lmfao. Learn to read first of all. I never once said over 50% isn't a majority. I simply said the majority isn't right. And yes. Studies have shown that kids raised by gay parents do just as well, PERHAPS BETTER with same sex parents than opposite sex parents. So in fact I do think two men/women are equal to opposite sex couples.
@Kevstar19 ,,i am aware that it is legal in that state and just a few others. its not legal in 29 states so far and i am glad to say its not legal in the one i live in.
@Kevstar19 ..,,,because its not just about gay marriage...its everything that comes with it....gay adoption..homosexuality taught in schools....on and on...parades down are city streets! ENOUGH!
...um...first of all...gays can already adopt. "Taught in schools?" You can't teach a child to be gay...that's like saying you can teach a person to be tall. And the parades? Those will go away IF YOU LEGALIZE THE FUCKING GAY MARRIAGE.
0-31 when the people vote. The masses have again and again rejected same-sex marriage, just like they reject polygamous marriage and incestuous marriage.
No same-sex marriage supporter has ever been able to justify how you could prevent consenting, of age adults, from entering into polygamous and/or incestuous marriages while allowing same-sex marriages.
If you want same-sex marriage on constitutional equal protection grounds, you have to take incestuous marriages along with it.
Polygamy WOULD be financially disasterous for our legal system.
Incest? Some forms of it are already legal in certain states, but either way, I'm not against it. It's not as if there wasn't plenty of incestuous relationships in the Bible, so there shouldn't be much reason for Christians to be against it either, unless they never read the damned thing.
This is exactly my point to you. You say being gay is wrong over and over, yet you have no logical reason or piece of evidence demonstrating so, and succinctly put it's hard to take you seriously with the way you've been incorrect about everything you've asserted, especially that line about the 1st amendment. It's like you didn't even bother to research any of this before commenting.
The 1st amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government fo a redress of grievances.
That whole, "shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion" part comes to mind when you want to make a law against something for religious reasons.
Has there ever been a community of homosexuals that flourished for hundreds of years? The Bible is the authority for how we live. Homosexuality is sin and they are not oppressed-they have jobs, live wehrever they want, go to schools and have every opprtunity that others have. You all just want acceptance-not rights.
-The question is irrelevant. It has nothing to do facts of homosexuality. You can't prove it's wrong so you raise pointless objections that have nothing to do with anything. You may as well ask, "has there ever been a community of leaf-blower users that flourished for hundreds of years." Ignorant to the fact that like the former, gay tolerance is a modern thing.
-oppressed the right to gay-marriage.
- America's not a theocracy. No one is expected to adhere to christian ideals.
And why ignore the fact that there are a hand full of countries where same-sex marriage is legal, and yet nothing bad has happened? What do you expect to happen? Why is homosexuality so detrimental in your opinion (besides your religious paranoia)?
Why do you think "Just because you said it makes it so"? Something you, ironically, tried to spout off to me as illogical.
Our fouding fathers were religious. Some Diests, others Christians. They came from countries where religious intolerance dominated. They believed in seperation of church and state which has evolved over the years to mean to erase all semblance of religion in gov't. Were we a better country back then than now? I believe we were. God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for sexual immorality. Rome and Greece were destroyed from within because of sexual immorality, of which, homosexuality is a part.
That's only true if you believe it, the Rome, Greece, Sodom, and Gommorah part, but there's no evidence to back that claim. Unless, you can prove that be the case, that homosexuality incurrs the wrath of a destructive God, then you don't have an actual argument. And even were that true, Sodom and Gomorrah were OT events when the supposed God of the Bible was vengeful and unforgiving, where as later he apparently became loving and peaceful with Jesus. Eitherway, you have no case.
The evidence is found in the Bible, in regards to Sodom and Gommorah. If you think God was vengeful in the OT, then you have not read it correctly. For example, Noah took 120 years to build the ark, telling people of God's judgment to come. That is longsuffering. God waited for the people to repent, but only Noah and his family was saved. In Matt 23, Jesus let the religious leaders have it. Please re read the Bible and understand. No country can be destroyed by another 'til weakend from inside.
Let me stop you there, since you appear to be intentionally missing the point. That point is; you need evidence to corroborate the Bible.
In the OT, God killed sinners. In the NT, Jesus preached peace and forgiveness. He discouraged death and encouraged a passifist approach. He encouraged to give to the government what is the government and made clear that the rules of this world is not that of Heaven, were it so one of his soldiers would have stopped the crucifixion. Reread your bible.
Just who were the soldiers of Jesus? And do you belive Jesus when He said He was the Messiah? Do you believe Jesus when He said that if you believ in me , you shall never perish? Is Jesus God? 1 Tim. 3:16>...God was manifest in the flesh...Do you believe Jesus when He said in John 5:39-40>Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. The OT testifies about Jesus. Do you believe?
I pick neither but I do believe what Jesus said and He backed it up by dying for my sins (and Yours) and rising from the dead three days later-as prophesied. If you need so many facts, then you would not need faith. Have you seen a black hole? But you believe it exists. Were you there when God laid the foundations of the earth as the Bible states? No, but your standing on it. Abraham believed what God told Him and God declared him righteous. Where is your Faith? What is your faith in?
You still did not answer the question of how does using religion as an argument go against the constitution? The 1st amendment means that the gov't shall nor establish a state religion. BTW, I am for the seperation of church and state-but not to the point of removing the 10 commandmnts from courthouses and such. The Bible is my final authority for faith and morals. If Adam and Eve were to procreate and replenish the earth (1 man 1 woman marriage) then why would God make gays? It's a choice.
"Congress shall make no LAW respecting the establishment of religion."
I answered the question. Making gay marriage illegal based on religious ambition conflicts with the quoted text. You're mandating the public to follow a set of rules dictated by Christianity. It's no different than forcing people to join the religion itself.
The key word in the 1st amendment is Establishment. The founding fathers did not want the country to be a theocracy. They came from Europe where state-religions led to many problems. Do we not already follow a set of rules dictated by Christianity-thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal? How about emblem that medical doctorswear-the pole with a snake? That too comes from the Bible. The Bible has influenced western thought in many ways. It settled the Barbarians, Vikings, thru Christian mission
Murder is not a law established by Christianity. It is a law established by common sense. Were murder legal, the society would not thrive because everyone would kill each other over every petty thing. Which goes to show why non-christian countries have this law hm? That symbol is of Hermes. Not sure what a hospital has to do with this anyway, though I don't see the point in going on as it's obvious you're not being serious.
Skipped over it, but thou shall not steal is also a common sense law. Were it not illegal our economy would be crap.
Anyway, what the founding Fathers wanted was a way to prevent religious folk from pushing their beliefs on the public. The whole point is to keep those who are not of one religion from being forced to follow the rules of another. To force those rules on others anyway is to go against the very system they set up to prevent that. Ever hear of the non-preferentialist interpritation?
Murder is a law established by common sense. So then, Hitler, Stalin, Tojo, Vikings and barbarians did not have common sense? My point was that people have adpoted Christian principle with out accepting Jesus, including symbols of The Bible. When Adam ate the fruit he was not to, he did not die right away, but he did die many years later. Accepting gay rights may do no harm now, but it will in the future. Depravity doesn't come right away-it destroys slowly. Repent before it's too late.
No they didn't. Those villains were maniacs responsible for the deaths of others without considering if the shoe was on the other foot would they want to be on the recieving end of their wrath.
Your point was refuted but you didn't listen. Hermes is a Messanger of the Greek Gods not a Christian one. Murder illegal because logically it would be suicidal to agree to live in a world where murder is legal. Not because God said so, especially since a big portion of the world isn't Christian.
You also still have the untenable task to prove homosexuality is a depravity first before even consider proving that it is detrimental to anyone. You've yet to do this instead opting to spout subjetive religious views which have no relevance except in a barbaric theocracy. You've not one logical objection in your comments.
It's sad what happened in New Jersey. I feel for you guys. We had to live through Prop 8 and Prop 22 in CA, and it stinks having your family's rights put up for popular vote. It's just wrong and un-American. Why can't people just let gay people alone? My parents are gay and have been together over 25 years and have 3 kids. They're not hurting anyone else. They just want equal rights. That's all. What's the big deal? Why can't our family be treated the same as other families? It's so unfair.
God did say in the Bible that homosexuality is sin. 1 Cor. 6:9>Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom fo God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effiminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind (sodomites) neither thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kindom of God.
Maybe you god is wrong.. Maybe my god says that what you do is a sin.. You live your live and enjoy not having others tell you how to live. How would you feel if a law was being passed that made it so that anyone who was christian couldn't marry. I think that gays shouldn't have to pay taxes because we are treated like second class. I cant openly serve in the army, adopt, give blood, marry, and believe me there is more.....
This has been flagged as spam show
Open to gay youth teens and young adults, parents and eductors. we have guest speakers and outings and we plays movies and other great stuff so please check us out. it a great place to make friends. Life get better when you check us out and start make good friends. Next Meeting is Feb 29, 2012 (Wed) 6:30PM to 8:30PM NORTH COUNTY BRANCH OF THE HUNTERDON COUNTY LIBRARY 65 Halsted Street Clinton, NJ 08809 ALOT OF FREE DOOR PRIZES IT ALL FREE AND FOOD AND DRINKS GLBT OF HUNTERDON COUNTY OF NJ.COM
gayandpeace 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If a Straight Boy is Raped by a Man Can That Make Him Gay?
gayteens.about.com/od/sexualit1/f/Straight-Boy-Raped-By-A-Man-Can-That-Make-Him-Gay.htm
gayandpeace 6 days ago
@Jerseyirish you truly are ignorant. Marriage is a bond, and just having a partner doesnt mean NEARLY as much, because there are councillors for marriage, there are gays the military now, and everyone like you needs to get that there IS no difference between us.
CasualMine 1 month ago
GLBT Of Hunterdon County of nj National Coming Out Day
October 11, 2011 7:00 P.M. to 9:00 P.M.
Meeting to be held at
North County Branch of the
Hunterdon County Library
65 Halsted Street, Clinton N.J. 08809
Open to Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender who are in high school and college students. speaker are:
The Human Rights Campaign Roger Rosen also Ashley Planned Parent Hood. with speakers bagels, cake, lots desserts refreshments lots of door prizes
glbt of hunterdon county of nj .com
gayandpeace 4 months ago
im not gay and i am a Christian, but wasn't America founded on the idea of freedom? seems to me like that's a greatest struggle. slaves, women, now gay people? dont just give freedom to some people and take it away from others. and how shameful for these people to clap when this was denied? this is some peoples life. never celebrate someone loss.
summerrenee92 8 months ago
@summerrenee92 Gays have freedom in Jersey. Being denied a piece of paper that says 'you're married' is not a denial of freedom. They get the same benefits with civil unions. Your logic is flawed and dispicaple to compare to the horrors of slavery. We have bigger issues here to be concerned with.
jerseyirish 8 months ago
This is not the end! New York suffered the same setback before Marriage Equality became law just in time for the Pride Parade! As a native Jerseyan Straight Ally I feel this will have been Governor Cuomo's greatest achievement. Though it's unlikely that Governor Christie will follow suit, IT'S STILL GONNA HAPPEN, FOLKS!!!
thudor1 8 months ago
What do eggplant spooks in Africa and fags in the USA have in common? They love butt sex, and God infects them w/ AIDS
ebonics4everyone 1 year ago
Peter puffing homos shot down in Tony Soprano's home state. Fuckin A. Go to Massachusetts, douchebags.
ebonics4everyone 1 year ago
This made me cry. Watching the religious groups band together under a banner hate, laughing and cheering together as the minority they trampled wept... sometimes it's just too much. Like the one guy said, this isn't a just a political issue, its people's lives. I hope all those right wing religious nut jobs burn in their respective hells for their cruelty.
However it was really inspiring to see how people keep hope alive in the face of each oppressive blow. I am amazed by their strength.
darkangelscruffy 1 year ago
This is about human rights!!!.
Would you hate your child for being Gay? Would you rather die than have a Gay Humanitarian save your life. Would you rather have a bad straight neighbor or a great Gay one?
This is about the quality of how we treat each other and respecting the rights of everyone........These are Gods teachings.
tique1227 1 year ago
@tique1227 Human rights allow you to be homosexual--not attain marriage. You have to have a long-term view to understand why legalizing gay marriage is a poor idea. We already have a decaying society, with broken families and under confident teens, and confusing people about gender roles will not help us overcome this challenge. Furthermore, with no cure for AIDs, making homosexuality mainstream through gay marriage will only infect more gays and straight people, which we all want to avoid.
TheGeekyNinjaStudios 1 year ago
You sound brilliant! NOT!
Men and woman can spread aides and beat each other up Duh, but worst yet, they have loads of kids they can't take care of! Why don't you Google notable gays, great people that have done amazing things! Open you mind before you open your mouth! Let me guess, you are a pretentious religious freak right?
tique1227 1 year ago
@tique1227
You just can't deal with the fact that AIDS spread through the majority of the gay community at a lightening speed and the straight community at a snails pace can you?
In fact to this day a straight person with AIDS is rare compare to a gay person with AIDS.
CHARESTHEHAMER 1 year ago
@CHARESTHEHAMER you are a registered hater on you tube
thestopgayhatelist 1 year ago
@thestopgayhatelist
Wow I'm shoot myself if I was a McCarthyist like you.
CHARESTHEHAMER 1 year ago
This is 2010 and it is time we wake up and give Gay marriage a chance to flourish! Gay people make wonderful parents, pay taxes, and contribute so much to our society and work force! More than you know!!!
This has nothing to do with religion, it is purely a human right! Who are we to judge others happiness!
tique1227 1 year ago
@tique1227
They more often than you'd like to admit also beat each other and spread AIDS like wildfire.
CHARESTHEHAMER 1 year ago
ught...very soon same sex marriage will be legal in all of Mexico, in Argentina, in Portugal and in an ex-soviet country somewhere in East Europe called Slovenia. Not to mention that it is already legal in South Africa and Spain. So the USA is just being irrational and lagging off behind. There's no logical argument in this issue. Just plain old religious-based bigotry, FROM CERTAIN BUT NOT ALL religions. So....support gay marriage. duh.
muellerican 1 year ago
@Sidney38SNJ
What's that?
I can't understand you with that strange man's cock in your mouth.
CHARESTHEHAMER 1 year ago
@Sidney38SNJ
That think you feel for just about any man that gives you the time of day?
That's lust.
CHARESTHEHAMER 1 year ago
@Sidney38SNJ
You don't know the difference between love and lust.
CHARESTHEHAMER 1 year ago
like this is surprising. every single time this comes up it rightfully gets voted down by the people or their representatives. and its not going to change. the same people who are voting it down are the liberal hippies of yesteryear. why would anyone think that the young liberal hippies of today are going to be any different. almost all young people are liberals and when they grow up almost all come to their senses and adopt a more conservative approach in both political and societal values.
RealityVersusEgo 1 year ago
History will not look kindly on this decision.
buddy51 2 years ago
" and no, you don't know God's side of this picture because you reject the "Fairy tale.""
So because I reject his existence now, I didn't know what it was like to believe in him when I accepted him then, got baptised then, prayed to him over every little thing then, etc. So, by your logic, becoming a skeptic changes the space-time continuum?... Yeah, like I said, I think I know both sides of the picture better than you. Especially with how you prove how not objective you are at all.
Sloth7d 2 years ago
" Scientists were wrong in the past, they are not infallible."
True, but I don't think you understand how science is usually wrong and corrected. Once a time the atom was considered the smallest substance, then the atom was spit and it lost this title. Didn't change the fact that the atom existed. This same line of reason goes to what I've cited. Perhaps things more will be found, slight corrections made, but the primary established facts won't change. And they conflict with christianity.
Sloth7d 2 years ago
In Gen. 1:24-25, God states that every creature reproduced after its kind. This statement is made 9 times in Gen. 1. This fact was not discovered until 1862. Up until that time it was considered a scientific fact that frogs arose from stagnant water, worms from manure, mice from warm, moist soil, insects from dew, and maggots from rotting meat. This observable scientific fact was disproven by Louis Pasteur and the Bible was demonstrated to have been right. This discredited theory was known as...
vadouis 2 years ago
1. Kinds are not species. 2. Just because something was believed to be true during the majority of the dark ages and the beginning of the Age of Enlightenment does not make it a scientific fact. To become a scientific fact the assertion in question must endure the trials of the scientifi method. 3. the bible states that animals are "kinds" which is not right nor a scientific term at all. Animals are species.
Sloth7d 2 years ago
...spontaneous generation. It must be rembered that Darwin's theory of evolution was born before spontaneous generation was disproven. Evolutionists often take the small changes or adaptations within a kind or species and try to argue that this proves evolution. All creationists recognize small variations within the created kinds. God placed the ability to adapt within the created kinds so that they could survive in different climates and circumstances. The fact that men may grow taller, that...
vadouis 2 years ago
"It must be rembered that Darwin's theory of evolution was born before spontaneous generation was disproven."
Probably the biggest nonsequitur argumentitive fallacy I've ever seen.
"Evolutionists often take the small changes or adaptations within a kind or species and try to argue that this proves evolution.""
Probably because that's what evolution is, small changes accumulating into bigger ones over a log period, with exception to your mention of "kinds" again.
Sloth7d 2 years ago
a dog's fur may grow thicker, or that a finch's beak may grow longer hardly provides any evidence that fish evolved into amphibians, amphibians evolved into reptiles, reptiles into mammals and birds, or that molecules evolved into man. There are strict genetic limits of adaption or variation within created kinds.
vadouis 2 years ago
Except you ignore the evidence that shows exactly that, like genetic and fossilized evidence connecting dinosaurs and birds or humans and apes. Atavistic genes in whales to create legs, or humans to create tails, or chicken to create teeth. That there exists a duckbilled mammal that lays eggs, mammals that live in the ocean or a mammal that flies. There's plenty of evidence overriding you assertion about genetic limits.
Sloth7d 2 years ago
"Once the New Testament was finished, that sign was taken away. Be objective"
Prov 30:6. Who's not being objective out of us two? Stop making things up.
And why don't you give a reason why any religion could be an objective position, because there most certainly isn't any objective reason to follow any of them based on evidence or reason.
Sloth7d 2 years ago
That's why it is called faith. BTW, why do you use a fairy tale to debunk a fairy tale? As regards to Mark 16, a christian cannot drink poison and not be harmed today, so it was only for that time.
vadouis 2 years ago
"That's why it is called faith."
So now you mean that you have no evidence to justify your standpoint of denying gay-marriage?
"BTW, why do you use a fairy tale to debunk a fairy tale?"
You SHOULD be asking, "Why does this fairytale disprove itself?"
" As regards to Mark 16, a christian cannot drink poison and not be harmed today, so it was only for that time"
Unless you have the verse to back that claim up you're just trying to give the bible an excuse; Prov 30:6.
Sloth7d 2 years ago
Screw it, I'll bite, again, since YOU brought it up, because this exchange of comments we've been having at least temporarily cures my boredom. What makes more sense; that an all powerful deity created animals like whales and dolphins to live in the sea despite being air breathing mammals with lungs, or that they adapted to a new environment over the course of millions of years? That dinosaurs existed in Jesus' time, or that they went excinct with the remaining smaller ones evolving into birds?
Sloth7d 2 years ago
Do you really think that such a divinely intelligent being designed bats to fly despite having the wrong bone structure for it, or the platypus to lay eggs despite being a mammal? You believe the geographical layering of fossils is caused by animals competing for higher ground during the great flood despite their being turtle and snail fossils on higher geographical layering than pteradactyls, apes and horses?
Are you serious?
Sloth7d 2 years ago
Do you think the carnivorse would not have eaten all of the remaining herbivores and then died from starvation after the great flood?
You think that we are all inbreeds from two lone humans despite how genetically impossible that is? Do you not know what inbreeding depression is?
No fossils? Do you know what homoerectus, homohabilis, etc are?
You believe the entire universe is only a few thousand years old despite measurements in redshift finding it to be billions of years old? What?
Sloth7d 2 years ago
that mankind cannot fulfill 10 simple commandments. No one is good enough to enter heaven. That is why Jesus came to die as a perfect sacrifice to pay the penalty for our sins. Yet, all you want to argue about is polygamy and side issues. No answer I could give you would suffice because we don't share a common ground of thought: The Bible is my authority for life. If I tasted an orange and you never had an orange, how could I describe it? I could not unless I gave you one to taste. Step out in
vadouis 2 years ago
"No. I know that the Bible is real because of the answered prayers in Jesus' name. "
You mean those prayers in which God answers in "maybe", "yes", and "no" to mundane request which would gather the same results from praying to anything? Yet prayer has never restored an amputee.
" If I tasted an orange and you never had an orange, how could I describe it? I could not unless I gave you one to taste"
Former christian here. I think I know both sides of this picture more than you do.
Sloth7d 2 years ago
"Yet prayer has never restored an amputee." How would you what the greatest need for an amputee is? Maybe it is to get rid of pride, or bitterness, things that only God would know. You were never a believer, because if you really knew how much Jesus loves you, you would never have rejected Him and no, you don't know God's side of this picture because you reject the "Fairy tale."
vadouis 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
" How would you what the greatest need for an amputee is?"
The fact that limbs are essential to live a productive life without assistance, and you still didn't answer the question. "Maybe it is to get rid of pride, or bitterness, things that only God would know."
I doubt that's what these guys prayed for which was the very premise of your assertion. It only proves that prayers go unanswered, and anything you thought had to do with a prayer probably didn't.
Sloth7d 2 years ago
I mean if these guys are praying for limbs yet get something else, how is that evidence for prayer?
" You were never a believer, because if you really knew how much Jesus loves you, you would never have rejected Him"
This is only true if God is real. So you can stop the circular arguments, and stop begging the question because the obvious possible alternative is that I don't believe because he isn't. Once again, who is the one not being objective here?
Sloth7d 2 years ago
faith. Search the other side of the argument and don't be biased. The possibility exsists that you could be wrong. The Mark scripture where the apostles would drink poison and not be harmed was true-only for them and at that time. Why? The New Testament was not wriiten so non-believers would see that these men had authority. Once the New Testament was finished, that sign was taken away. Be objective. Scientists were wrong in the past, they are not infallible.
vadouis 2 years ago
"Search the other side of the argument and don't be biased."
Uh, Mr.Pot, in this entire comment section you've done nothing but dismiss everything everyone has asserted with christian rhetoric.
"was true-only for them and at that time."
No it wasn't, and Jesus phrases it specifically to encompass more than just the apostles. "And these signs shall follow them that believe.." which in context with Mark 16:15 & 16 clearly refers to his future followers and not the apostles.
Sloth7d 2 years ago
It is obvious that you don't believe the Bible. The possibility exsists that you are reading it as an intellectual rather than as someone who sincerely wishes to know the truth. If the Bible is not true, then i have been a fool. But if the Bible is true, than you have a lot more to lose: an eternity in hell. Do you think I hate you that I would want you to avoid that fate? No. I know that the Bible is real because of the answered prayers in Jesus' name. Keep looking, the Bible's main message is
vadouis 2 years ago
"The possibility exsists that you are reading it as an intellectual rather than as someone who sincerely wishes to know the truth."
This sentence contradicts itself.
"if the Bible is true, than you have a lot more to lose:."
But if their exists a God who eternally punishes people for irrashionally believing in christianity and other relions while rewarding skeptics? Who loses then? Oh, you. These stupid hypotheticals work both ways.
Sloth7d 2 years ago
That out of the way, I love how you have run away from the question I posed by begging the question, making assumptions about me, attacking my character with Bible verses, and dismissing me as hopeless even though the subject was never about me in the first place. Some real grade F debate tactics you got there, and all because I tripped you up and called you out on a bunch of baseless assertions you made up. Now are you going to get back on point, or continue ignoring the topic at hand?
Sloth7d 2 years ago
Once again in deut and lev there are laws regulating slave labor but nothing outlawing it. Such as Lev 25 44-46, deut 20 10-18, and even in 1 Peter 2:18-25 with 1 tim 6:1. Nothing needed twisting. It's all there for you to read.
Sloth7d 2 years ago
Subjects that the bible condones; polygamy, incestuous relations with ones own daughters, slavery, other forms of incest, the silence and submission of women, yet this is the disgusting text where christians and mormons siphon off some sense of "moral fiber" that prevents them from allowing gays to marry?
Sloth7d 2 years ago
Comment removed
IanLoewen 2 years ago
How did you twist that out of the Bible?
IanLoewen 2 years ago
Nothing to twist. It's all there. Verses in deuteronomy merely regulate guidelines for polygamy, but it isn't outlawed. Lot knocked up his daughter, justifiabely as among the forbidden relationships in Lev and Deut. there is nothing mentioned about father and daughter relationships being forbidden, nor cousin, nor nieces, not to mention Abraham marrying his half sister. Then there's 1tim 2 11-15; 1cor 14 34-35 ; and deut 22 28-29 which condones the inequality and oppression of women.
Sloth7d 2 years ago
"There is nothing mentioned about father and daughter relationships being forbidden..." How about Lev. 18:6-20?Abraham married his half sister before the Mosiac Law was given. Lot was drunk and his daughters took advantage of the siuation. Though his daughters came out of Sodom, the sexual immorality practiced there influenced them to commit such a wicked act. Their offspring was troublesome to Israel for a long time.
vadouis 2 years ago
Nope, nothing mentioned about father and daughter, though every other act of incest, minus sex with a 1st cousin and niece, is mentioned. Why is that? Why is only the act within Lot and his daughters carried out the only exeption, besides 1st cousins and nieces? And what does it matter when Abraham did the act when it was clearly always a sin, wasn't it? Kain's homicidal act was clearly wrong despite this too correct?
Sloth7d 2 years ago
Lev. 18:6>None of you shall approach to any that is NEAR OF KIN, to uncover their nahedness: I am the LORD.-Does not the father daughter relationship include near of kin? Abraham's marriage did not violate the law of Moses because it did not come until 400 years later. How else could the world be populated with only the children of Adam and Eve? The pre flood world was vastly different than the world today.
vadouis 2 years ago
You're ignoring the fact that the verse labels off every thing considered "near of kin" immediately afterwards just to be clear. Apparently, father and direct daughter isn't so, even though mother and son IS in fact listed.
And are you saying that God's laws, and what he considers sin, are subject to change depending on the contex and era? If you are, I can't see how you expect anyone to take any christian seriously when they declare homosexuality as forbidden now as it was 2000 years ago.
Sloth7d 2 years ago
Then the question becomes: does the father-daughter relationship becomes "near of kin"? Just because the Bible mentions ploygamy does not mean that God condones it. When God created the world, there was a water vapor surrounding the earth, giving it a greenhouse effect: No polar ice caps, no 4 seasons, constant temp. of 75 degrees, rich vegetation, docile, non venemous animals, and humans living long time. There was no radiation because of the water vapor. DNA was not damaged thereby allowing
vadouis 2 years ago
"Then the question becomes: does the father-daughter relationship becomes "near of kin"?"
That was the question that Deut 18:6 already answered in it's blatant omission.
"Just because the Bible mentions ploygamy does not mean that God condones it. "
That would be true if it was JUST mention it. However, it is mentioned, regulated, demanded in one context, and a practiced act with many of God's followers without any declarations against it as being evil or wrong. That's condoning it.
Sloth7d 2 years ago
God hates divorce but mankind practices it. That does not make divorce right, does it? Every time polygamy is mentioned, bad things happen. Jesus is to be married to his bride (not brides) the church. It was Adam and Eve, not Adam, Eve, Mary, Susan and so on. Mankind perverted what God had created. That aside, how do you get to heaven?
vadouis 2 years ago
"Every time polygamy is mentioned, bad things happen"
Even though that's not true, why doesn't it disturb you that polygamy was neither outlawed nor considered a sin.
And what does Adam and Eve have to do with it? By that logic you can ridicule a lot of things; cars,"it was Adam and Eve. Not Adam and Even and a mini van." Housing, "It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Eve in the garden, not Adam and Even in the house." Clothes, "It was Adam and Eve naked, not Adam and Eve clothed."
Sloth7d 2 years ago
brothers to marry sisters or nieces. After the flood, the water vapor collapsed, the earth shifted so that we have 4 seasons, polar ice caps, and the age of man decreased from living hundreds of years to less than 100 years. By the time of Moses, the DNA chromosones had changed that inter family relationship could not produce healhty children. That is why a brother could not marry his sister. You don't go to hell because you'r gay, you go to hell beacause u didn't believe what God said about it.
vadouis 2 years ago
Except you made all of this up. Nothing in the bible gives this as an explanation at all. Not only do you speak herecy against your religion by adding to God's word prov. 30:6, but you completely show you have no grasp for science as well.
Sloth7d 2 years ago
Really? Other planets have water vapors surrounding it. Whenever animals or humans die, carbon 14 is released into the atmosphere. The amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere points to a young earth (not billions of years old). The world wide flood is well documented. The Miami Herald cited scientist who say that the polar ice caps were once tropical. But of course they are wrong. You were there, right?
vadouis 2 years ago
Rather than point out how much of that you made up, and how ID was rejected in court as not science and by every peer review journal it was submitted to why don't we stay on the subject and not derail the conversation?
Here's the underlining point. You pulled that explanation out of your ass. It isn't in the bible, it is herecy to the bible, and that still leaves you to explain if one law could change depending on the era why should we assume homosexuality is still wrong 2000 years later?
Sloth7d 2 years ago
Because homosexuality is condemned in both the old and new testaments. Lets not get nasty here. We are just talking. There are a lot of things not known about our universe, but one thing is known, mankind is sinful and that has seperated us from God, Jesus came to die for us that whosoever believed in Him should not perish. One day you can bring those arguments to God, but if you think that being gay does not violate His word, than you have the wrong view of God, not me.
vadouis 2 years ago
You seem rather daft in thinking that we were ever talking about the bibles validity. No, it's all bullshit, and noone is sinful because sin doesn't exist. And even if you believe that garbage, there are some churches that believe gay marriage was only bad in that cultural context. No. We're talking about hyposcrites like you who can't answer give straight answers to hard questions such as "Why is it not bad to practice polygamy and some forms of incest, yet bad to practice homosexuality."
Sloth7d 2 years ago
Why the bad words? It is because there is hatred in your heart. I have already explained it but you refuse to understand. 1 Cor. 2:14>But the natural (guided by human emotions) man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness (to use your words:BS) unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. You expect to face God one day with that argument? Good luck. God said man is sinful. DId He lie? Have I become your enemy because I tell you truth
vadouis 2 years ago
You got that all out of me declaring the bible as bullshit; euphemisms being wrong, a myth, a fairytale, bogus, fiction, etc. or did you misinterpret my obviously conveyed fustration with you dodging the question-which you STILL did- as hatred for a guy I don't believe in? Is that possible? Further, do you expect to convince me the thing I declared as bullshit (see euphemisms) with very text from the bullshit in question(see begging the question) (see circular argument)?
Sloth7d 2 years ago
The bottom line is that the Holy Spirit is convicting you of sin and that is why you are reacting so violently. Again, why the bad words? Rom. 1:21-22>Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. The Bible sure described you all right
vadouis 2 years ago
So at this point you are going to cover your ears and preach bible verses while refusing to answer the question while simultaneously creating strawman arguments of me that even more sadly you need to beg the question to even defeat an argument you made up. Nice
Are you going to answer the question or waste time preaching bible verse I don't believe in to distract from the fact that you don't have an answer?
Sloth7d 2 years ago
Even if the answer I gave would satisfy you, you would not repent. Better re-read the answers I already gave but I doubt it would benefit you because you are so engrossed in beliveing that the Bible is wrong. God help you.
vadouis 2 years ago
This is how I know you weren't even paying attetion. The question had nothing to do with me justifying myself, but any believer justifying THEMSELVES in their stance against gay marriage because the bible said so when the biblical laws regulates and allow polygamy(as I've sourced), demands sexism (right in genesis even 3:16, and also previously sourced), allows forms of incest (also sourced), and slavery (also sourced).
And why do you think pro-polgamy laws no longer applies, yet anti-gay do?
Sloth7d 2 years ago
Rom.1:26-27>For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. You need to repent and come to Jesus.
vadouis 2 years ago
I can't because the bible is a fairy tale. You can't repent to imaginary things.
You on the other hand need to wise up and realize that your hypocritical sect of the christian religion has no place in politics nor in the lives of gay couples when the bible codones slavery, polygamy, forms of incest, and sexism.
Sloth7d 2 years ago
That is your opinion and it is obvious that no matter what argument is brought up against it, no matter how convincing, you are bias towards it. Your mind is already made up. You are not seeking truth, you just want justification for your lifestyle. You won't find it in the Bible-repent before it is too late. You really believe that Jesus condones slavey, polygamy, forms of incest and sexism? God help you.
vadouis 2 years ago
"That is your opinion"
No it's a fact proven scientifically and scripturally.
Fact- the earth is 1 billion+ years old and not 6000+ years old. Proven by various dating systems as well as geographical layering.
Fact-christians die from poison same as everyone else despite Mark 16:17-18
Fact- there's no evidence corroberating anything the bible says
Ect.
"You really believe that Jesus condones...?"
It's like you ignored every comment where I pointed out this to be the exact case.
Sloth7d 2 years ago
Calculations based upon the rate of influx of helium into our atmosphere, the decay of the earth's magnetic field, the imbalance of carbon-14 and carbon-12, the decay of the earth's spin, ocean chemical concentrations, continental erosion rates, ocean sediment levels and many other evidences all point to the earth being just a few thousand years old.
vadouis 2 years ago
No it doesn't. You won't find any credible scientist asserting this nor any peer reviewed and approved paper arguing such a laughable idea when all dating methods and the geographical layering point towards the earth being billions of years old. I've already told you this.
Sloth7d 2 years ago
There is no evidence for evolution in the fossil record of the past. Evolutionists do not have one rel or proven example of evolution between any two species in the entire fossil record, not one. I will stick with the Bible's view of creation.
vadouis 2 years ago
When did I mention evolution? Is your brain not processing what you're reading?
Why is the bible mythological version credible in the first place? What proof do you have? Why do you keep begging the question?
Sloth7d 2 years ago
The Bible is a fairy tale? It seems that you use a fairy tale to debunk a fairy tale. Is not that circular reasoning? BTW, is there any New Testament scripture that approves polygamy?
vadouis 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The Bible is a fairy tale? It seems that you use a fairy tale to debunk a fairy tale. Is not that circular reasoning?"
Fairytale? Do you mean that I cited Mark 16:17-18 and the fact that christians very much do die of poison like everyone else? Then no. That is not circular reasoning, as the bible fails to meet even it's own standards based on real events.
" BTW, is there any New Testament scripture that approves polygamy? "
Jesus said nothing on polygamy to change it's status.
Sloth7d 2 years ago
As polygamy, the evil line of Cain produced Lamech who married two wives. The godly line of Seth did not practice polygamy. Also, Deut. 17:17 does not allow polygamy. David and Solomon disobeyed this command and paid dearly for it. Solomon's wives led him away from God and Absalom, David's son, slept with his fathers concubines and wives, humiliating David.
vadouis 2 years ago
Deut 17 17 is a regulation on polygamy. Not an outlawing of it, and more specifically as an admonishment for heirs to the throne not to take betroth too many women.
However, Exodus 21:10 and deut 21: 15-17 clearly condone and regulate the practice, while deut 25 5-10 expects it in this context else shame your entire lineage.
Sloth7d 2 years ago
And seriously, fact check next time. Don't just throw the specific excerpt out so disingenuously. You clearly read that Deut 17:17 were laws only pertaining to the king. Polygamy was fair game, with minor regulations, to everyone else. Your bible condones this.
Sloth7d 2 years ago
As far as women are concerned, there is no oppression nor inequality between man and woman. There is an order though. As Chrsit is the head of the church, the man is the head of the woman. If the men were to treat the woman the way God wanted them to tb treated, you wouldn't have divorce. If a husband would love his wife, the wife would submit lovingly to her husband. Eph. 5:22-25. The word "submit" means to respondto your own husband as unto the Lord. If no love, then no submission.
vadouis 2 years ago
"there is no oppression nor inequality"
"man is the head of woman"
We have ourselves a contradiction, and an extreme case of cognitive dissonance.
"means respond unto your own husband as unto the Lord"
You mean that guy who wants his followers to love and obey him else he'll send you to hell? Sounds pretty oppresive to me if any man told a woman he would burn the crap out of her should she not love him. Though that's a husband you're talking about. I mentioned sexism as a whole.
Sloth7d 2 years ago
Maybe its time Us gay ppl start using Violence , i'm getting tired of waiting around.....
Nexis4Jersey 2 years ago
@Nexis4Jersey please try
glcm437 2 years ago
another victory for normal people
glcm437 2 years ago
Another victory for normal people? What exactly is normal? Please inform me. Idiots.
Kevstar19 2 years ago
"Normal people" are people who don't engage in, or support, deviant sexual behavior. As an illustration, look at quleghy's posts, he believes that both homosexual and incestuous behavior is acceptable: quleughy said "Incest?.... I'm not against it." That is abnormal.
This isn't complicated Kevstar.
If you need more help with defining normal people, consider this... If don't have the intellectual capacity to understand what is "normal", then you don't fall into that category.
MichaelFondledMe 2 years ago
@Kevstar19 ...well if you dont know you never will.
homosexuality is not and never will be normal.
glcm437 2 years ago
Lol. This is funny. The ignorant man tells me that I'm ignorant. Fucking hysterical.
Have a nice blissfully ignorant life :D
Kevstar19 2 years ago
@Kevstar19 ..well every time the CITIZENS are asked to VOTE on same sex marriage the CITIZENS VOTE TO BAN IT!
so you are the one that lives an ignorant life. the VAST MAJORITY of AMERICA DOES NOT WANT ANYTHING TO DO WITH GAY MARRIAGE!
glcm437 2 years ago
LOL RAGE SOME MORE. Lol the "vast majority" (Which it really isn't vast) Are just plain stupid my friend ;D their the ignorant ones. Wake up and smell the fucking roses :D
Kevstar19 2 years ago
@Kevstar19 ..its vast enough to vote down gay marriage in 29 out of 50 states.
glcm437 2 years ago
LOL not really at all vast! That's barely more than half >_>
Kevstar19 2 years ago
@Kevstar19 ..more then half still means a MAJORITY!
glcm437 2 years ago
Are you trying to prove something to me? Ok fine. Here's what you've proven. You've proven to me that the "VAST" majority of the population is brainwashed by religion, chooses hate over love and doesn't think twice about peoples' feelings. That is what you have proven.
Kevstar19 2 years ago
@Kevstar19 ...think what you want....the fact is that every time people are allowed to vote on gay marriage they vote agianst it.
glcm437 2 years ago
Lmao. You are so incredibly arrogant. Yes. You know all. Homosexuality is most definitely not love because you said so.
Kevstar19 2 years ago
@Kevstar19 every time! every time people vote against gay marriage. even in california.
glcm437 2 years ago
Wrong. Look at the states like New Hampshire and Massachusetts. They allow gay marriage. Oh wait...what's that? Oh...they also have the lowest divorce rates in the entire country? Wow..that's very interesting.
There's more to it then lust huh? Imbecile. Wake up. Look around you. LOL It's an animalistic behavior?! Then WTF do you call heterosexuality??? Non animalistic???? I hope you know, we are animals.
Kevstar19 2 years ago
@Kevstar19 new hampshire and massachusetts never put the subject of gay marriage up for a vote or the people would have voted it down just as in the other 29 states that homos tried to firce thier lifestyle on the rest of the population.
glcm437 2 years ago
You have the most unthoughtful, childish arguments I have ever seen. You're validity is close to zero. Please try again sir.
Kevstar19 2 years ago
@Kevstar19 ....the fact is most americans dont agree with you...now if you want to call that childish ...ok
the best thing for America is to have gays move to canada.
glcm437 2 years ago
LMFAO Are you fucking stupid? New Hampshire and Mass have gay marriage. Lmao you are stupid beyond belief. This is why your arguments have no validity! You don't even know anything about the subject. Please sir try again.
Kevstar19 2 years ago
(Mass. Was actually the first US state to approve same sex marriage bud.) You should look it up before you speak again.
Kevstar19 2 years ago
Oh yes, only straight people can love huh? Ridiculous.
Kevstar19 2 years ago
@Kevstar19 homosexuality is an animalistic behavior.
glcm437 2 years ago
Oh and my good sir don't you worry. I was once Catholic. My parents are still Catholic. I bare no grudges against religious folk. (Though my parents agree that gay marriage is fine.) But it occured to me one day that religion is quite stupid in some ways.
God is all powerful, almighty, he is the most UNDERSTANDING thing in the universe. So, why would a being so mighty...HATE SOMETHING AS SIMPLE AS TWO GUYS FUCKING. IT MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE.
Kevstar19 2 years ago
@Kevstar19 ..im not catholic and i dont need the bible to understand how wrong homosexuality is.
glcm437 2 years ago
Do you really think the most omnipotent being would hate something like love? So who the fuck cares if they can't reproduce. FINE, then don't allow old people or infertile couples to marry. Love is love. Stop denying that "Its different then straight marriage" ITS NOT. Get over yourself. And grow the fuck up.
Kevstar19 2 years ago
@Kevstar19 ..homosexualiy is not love . its lust
glcm437 2 years ago
You cannot see a difference between a man and a man getting together and a man and a woman? Man that is sad.
IanLoewen 2 years ago
And where the hell did you come from? Do you wanna argue as well? I'm sure your arguments are just as terribad as glcm437
Kevstar19 2 years ago
Comment removed
IanLoewen 2 years ago
I was reading your arguments and I am sitting here laughing because your arguments make no sense.
IanLoewen 2 years ago
Ok...go on.
Kevstar19 2 years ago
Comment removed
IanLoewen 2 years ago
Saying that a man and a woman uniting is the same thing as a man and a man uniting is absurd. So is the claim where you say that 50% is not a majority. I am just trying to help you out.
IanLoewen 2 years ago
Lmfao. Learn to read first of all. I never once said over 50% isn't a majority. I simply said the majority isn't right. And yes. Studies have shown that kids raised by gay parents do just as well, PERHAPS BETTER with same sex parents than opposite sex parents. So in fact I do think two men/women are equal to opposite sex couples.
Way to go. You shoulda stayed in school.
Kevstar19 2 years ago
Comment removed
IanLoewen 2 years ago
And by the last line, you seem to be the kind that would say a man is the same thing as a woman. Don't go telling me that's not what you said.
IanLoewen 2 years ago
Again, you misread. I did not say men and women are the same. I said same sex couples and opposite sex couples are equal in parenting.
Kevstar19 2 years ago
@Kevstar19 ,,i am aware that it is legal in that state and just a few others. its not legal in 29 states so far and i am glad to say its not legal in the one i live in.
glcm437 2 years ago
Why are you glad? How in anyway does gay marriage effect your life?
Kevstar19 2 years ago
@Kevstar19 ..,,,because its not just about gay marriage...its everything that comes with it....gay adoption..homosexuality taught in schools....on and on...parades down are city streets! ENOUGH!
glcm437 2 years ago
...um...first of all...gays can already adopt. "Taught in schools?" You can't teach a child to be gay...that's like saying you can teach a person to be tall. And the parades? Those will go away IF YOU LEGALIZE THE FUCKING GAY MARRIAGE.
Kevstar19 2 years ago
@Kevstar19 BULLSHIT!!!!! imati nijedan ideja šta te biti govorenje okolo. ja sam ispunjavanja s te. zbogom
glcm437 2 years ago
Fine yell at me in some other language. You are proving how immature you are and how my arguments are superior to yours.
Kevstar19 2 years ago
@Kevstar19 ........doviđenja.
glcm437 2 years ago
Precisely my point
Kevstar19 2 years ago
0-31 when the people vote. The masses have again and again rejected same-sex marriage, just like they reject polygamous marriage and incestuous marriage.
No same-sex marriage supporter has ever been able to justify how you could prevent consenting, of age adults, from entering into polygamous and/or incestuous marriages while allowing same-sex marriages.
If you want same-sex marriage on constitutional equal protection grounds, you have to take incestuous marriages along with it.
Nope.
MichaelFondledMe 2 years ago
Polygamy WOULD be financially disasterous for our legal system.
Incest? Some forms of it are already legal in certain states, but either way, I'm not against it. It's not as if there wasn't plenty of incestuous relationships in the Bible, so there shouldn't be much reason for Christians to be against it either, unless they never read the damned thing.
quleughy 2 years ago
Quleghy... so you aren't against homosexuality or incest.
Thanks quleughy... that's all anyone needs to know about you. Now no one needs to waste their time reading your rambling illogical posts.
MichaelFondledMe 2 years ago
"Just because you say so doesn't make it so."
This is exactly my point to you. You say being gay is wrong over and over, yet you have no logical reason or piece of evidence demonstrating so, and succinctly put it's hard to take you seriously with the way you've been incorrect about everything you've asserted, especially that line about the 1st amendment. It's like you didn't even bother to research any of this before commenting.
quleughy 2 years ago
The 1st amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government fo a redress of grievances.
so how is using religion unconstutuional?
vadouis 2 years ago
That whole, "shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion" part comes to mind when you want to make a law against something for religious reasons.
quleughy 2 years ago
Has there ever been a community of homosexuals that flourished for hundreds of years? The Bible is the authority for how we live. Homosexuality is sin and they are not oppressed-they have jobs, live wehrever they want, go to schools and have every opprtunity that others have. You all just want acceptance-not rights.
vadouis 2 years ago
-The question is irrelevant. It has nothing to do facts of homosexuality. You can't prove it's wrong so you raise pointless objections that have nothing to do with anything. You may as well ask, "has there ever been a community of leaf-blower users that flourished for hundreds of years." Ignorant to the fact that like the former, gay tolerance is a modern thing.
-oppressed the right to gay-marriage.
- America's not a theocracy. No one is expected to adhere to christian ideals.
-I'm not gay
quleughy 2 years ago
And why ignore the fact that there are a hand full of countries where same-sex marriage is legal, and yet nothing bad has happened? What do you expect to happen? Why is homosexuality so detrimental in your opinion (besides your religious paranoia)?
Why do you think "Just because you said it makes it so"? Something you, ironically, tried to spout off to me as illogical.
quleughy 2 years ago
Our fouding fathers were religious. Some Diests, others Christians. They came from countries where religious intolerance dominated. They believed in seperation of church and state which has evolved over the years to mean to erase all semblance of religion in gov't. Were we a better country back then than now? I believe we were. God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for sexual immorality. Rome and Greece were destroyed from within because of sexual immorality, of which, homosexuality is a part.
vadouis 2 years ago
That's only true if you believe it, the Rome, Greece, Sodom, and Gommorah part, but there's no evidence to back that claim. Unless, you can prove that be the case, that homosexuality incurrs the wrath of a destructive God, then you don't have an actual argument. And even were that true, Sodom and Gomorrah were OT events when the supposed God of the Bible was vengeful and unforgiving, where as later he apparently became loving and peaceful with Jesus. Eitherway, you have no case.
quleughy 2 years ago
The evidence is found in the Bible, in regards to Sodom and Gommorah. If you think God was vengeful in the OT, then you have not read it correctly. For example, Noah took 120 years to build the ark, telling people of God's judgment to come. That is longsuffering. God waited for the people to repent, but only Noah and his family was saved. In Matt 23, Jesus let the religious leaders have it. Please re read the Bible and understand. No country can be destroyed by another 'til weakend from inside.
vadouis 2 years ago
Let me stop you there, since you appear to be intentionally missing the point. That point is; you need evidence to corroborate the Bible.
In the OT, God killed sinners. In the NT, Jesus preached peace and forgiveness. He discouraged death and encouraged a passifist approach. He encouraged to give to the government what is the government and made clear that the rules of this world is not that of Heaven, were it so one of his soldiers would have stopped the crucifixion. Reread your bible.
quleughy 2 years ago
Just who were the soldiers of Jesus? And do you belive Jesus when He said He was the Messiah? Do you believe Jesus when He said that if you believ in me , you shall never perish? Is Jesus God? 1 Tim. 3:16>...God was manifest in the flesh...Do you believe Jesus when He said in John 5:39-40>Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. The OT testifies about Jesus. Do you believe?
vadouis 2 years ago
It doesn't matter as America is not a theocracy. How long are you going to troll on like this? Whatever.Let's cut the b.s.
Here are your options essentailly as laid forth by the 1st Amendment;
Either 1.America is not a theocracy or 2. Gay people should be allowed marriage. Pick one.
quleughy 2 years ago
I pick neither but I do believe what Jesus said and He backed it up by dying for my sins (and Yours) and rising from the dead three days later-as prophesied. If you need so many facts, then you would not need faith. Have you seen a black hole? But you believe it exists. Were you there when God laid the foundations of the earth as the Bible states? No, but your standing on it. Abraham believed what God told Him and God declared him righteous. Where is your Faith? What is your faith in?
vadouis 2 years ago
You still did not answer the question of how does using religion as an argument go against the constitution? The 1st amendment means that the gov't shall nor establish a state religion. BTW, I am for the seperation of church and state-but not to the point of removing the 10 commandmnts from courthouses and such. The Bible is my final authority for faith and morals. If Adam and Eve were to procreate and replenish the earth (1 man 1 woman marriage) then why would God make gays? It's a choice.
vadouis 2 years ago
"Congress shall make no LAW respecting the establishment of religion."
I answered the question. Making gay marriage illegal based on religious ambition conflicts with the quoted text. You're mandating the public to follow a set of rules dictated by Christianity. It's no different than forcing people to join the religion itself.
.
quleughy 2 years ago
Also read the Treaty of Tripoli. We are not a Christian Nation. We are a Democratic Republic, not a Theocracy.
And why do you ignore the fact that Canada and many other countries have legalized gay marriage with no consequence?
quleughy 2 years ago
The key word in the 1st amendment is Establishment. The founding fathers did not want the country to be a theocracy. They came from Europe where state-religions led to many problems. Do we not already follow a set of rules dictated by Christianity-thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal? How about emblem that medical doctorswear-the pole with a snake? That too comes from the Bible. The Bible has influenced western thought in many ways. It settled the Barbarians, Vikings, thru Christian mission
vadouis 2 years ago
Murder is not a law established by Christianity. It is a law established by common sense. Were murder legal, the society would not thrive because everyone would kill each other over every petty thing. Which goes to show why non-christian countries have this law hm? That symbol is of Hermes. Not sure what a hospital has to do with this anyway, though I don't see the point in going on as it's obvious you're not being serious.
quleughy 2 years ago
Skipped over it, but thou shall not steal is also a common sense law. Were it not illegal our economy would be crap.
Anyway, what the founding Fathers wanted was a way to prevent religious folk from pushing their beliefs on the public. The whole point is to keep those who are not of one religion from being forced to follow the rules of another. To force those rules on others anyway is to go against the very system they set up to prevent that. Ever hear of the non-preferentialist interpritation?
quleughy 2 years ago
Murder is a law established by common sense. So then, Hitler, Stalin, Tojo, Vikings and barbarians did not have common sense? My point was that people have adpoted Christian principle with out accepting Jesus, including symbols of The Bible. When Adam ate the fruit he was not to, he did not die right away, but he did die many years later. Accepting gay rights may do no harm now, but it will in the future. Depravity doesn't come right away-it destroys slowly. Repent before it's too late.
vadouis 2 years ago
No they didn't. Those villains were maniacs responsible for the deaths of others without considering if the shoe was on the other foot would they want to be on the recieving end of their wrath.
Your point was refuted but you didn't listen. Hermes is a Messanger of the Greek Gods not a Christian one. Murder illegal because logically it would be suicidal to agree to live in a world where murder is legal. Not because God said so, especially since a big portion of the world isn't Christian.
quleughy 2 years ago
You also still have the untenable task to prove homosexuality is a depravity first before even consider proving that it is detrimental to anyone. You've yet to do this instead opting to spout subjetive religious views which have no relevance except in a barbaric theocracy. You've not one logical objection in your comments.
quleughy 2 years ago
It's sad what happened in New Jersey. I feel for you guys. We had to live through Prop 8 and Prop 22 in CA, and it stinks having your family's rights put up for popular vote. It's just wrong and un-American. Why can't people just let gay people alone? My parents are gay and have been together over 25 years and have 3 kids. They're not hurting anyone else. They just want equal rights. That's all. What's the big deal? Why can't our family be treated the same as other families? It's so unfair.
rainbowheartgirl 2 years ago
God did say in the Bible that homosexuality is sin. 1 Cor. 6:9>Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom fo God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effiminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind (sodomites) neither thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kindom of God.
vadouis 2 years ago
Maybe you god is wrong.. Maybe my god says that what you do is a sin.. You live your live and enjoy not having others tell you how to live. How would you feel if a law was being passed that made it so that anyone who was christian couldn't marry. I think that gays shouldn't have to pay taxes because we are treated like second class. I cant openly serve in the army, adopt, give blood, marry, and believe me there is more.....
mattcr24 2 years ago