Since neither you nor I have any direct experience of the after death, I submit we are dependent on the claims of putative authorities.Based on my experience & those of others, I vehemently disagree that spiritual transgressions do not have infinite attributes.U appear naive about life-have you examined your own immoral experiences? Have you read the Bible? Hatred, murder,rape, lies,greed,exploitations, theft are so evil Jesus warned they lead to everlasting torment, darkness,weeping & distress
@TheDukeljk I hope you get aids form the whores you sleep with, its just as easy to get aids form a woman as a hero guy as it is gay men, it seems like the only luck ones are the dykes like me, we really don't have to worry to much about STDs. Like i said i hope you get aids, but I hope you don't die form it for a very very long time, I hope you just waste away hated and forgotten like your stupid ideas. and yes before you ask I am evil, no one believes me because I'm so cute but yes i am evil.
Christians do not want to limit anyone's human rights or personal dignity. On the contrary, Christians want to see our society advance and become fairer and more equal. We are concerned with the well being of our society and more than anything want to see all people come to a perfect understanding of self and freedom from any manner of spiritual bondage by the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. who is above everything else in all creation
So who are you LOL. you have 10000 views on youtube and this man has the most selling book OF ALL TIME. Oh and he STILL gave the invocation and STILL has about 25k attending his church.... Oh and his wife had cancer and was healed. LOL dude get a life.
you do realise the hypocrisy of a gay-marriage advocate dissallowing incest marriage right? the fundamental arguement for gay marriage is "don't judge the love between 2 consenting adults" or "you can't help who you love" .. Look i know it's ludacris to compare it to pedophelia because the child is not consenting, but with incest you are still judging two consenting parties that "can't help" who they love.
Incest = Should be legalized as long as couples know that their children may have birth defects. They should have the liberty to make love, if they like.
Polygamy = Why not? They may have more kids, but it should be okay if they have the spending power to raise all of them in a healthy household.
Pedophilia = Euuuhhh . . . Society's not ready for it yet. People view it as a bad thing, so the kids think that they are to blame. If we were open to it [like the Greeks], the wouldn't be f'ed up.
@kevinguy91 oh what happened to your favourite infertile couples argument? (for incest marriage) and as for polygamy, it doesn't have to be 1 man and many women, it can be vice versa or a bunch of gay men or gay women.
Comparing Gay marriage to pedophilia is a little over the top, but not by far. It is on the say page as incest and polygamy. How can some one say I should be able to marry anyone I want, but then say others can't.
I just love the way christians pick and choose what they want out of the bible.
Yes that book says to kill gays. It also says to kill people who work on Sundays.
I will take the bible more seriously when somebody goes to a Walmart on a Sunday and kills all the workers. Guess we will see separation of church and state then eh?
It's like saying killing and eating animals is on the same level as killing and eating a human. Assuming your not a vegan, you can see the flaw in this logic.
I'm not religious so don't take it that way but, if the gays are going to say they are born gay then what right do they have to say that pedophiles are not born pedophiles? Why should what they want be legal and not what others want?
Almost any psychologist will tell you that hardly any exclusive pedophile can stop their attractions towards children ... not to mention gain attraction to adults. "Born that way" ... I don't know ... but it seems pretty permanent from a fairly early age. The differeance is that pedophiles rape children. We are talking about two consenting adults having a relationship when we are talking about gay rights.
And, of course, the premis of it is a bit different. IE, half the population is (or will) be able to marry an adult male in any state ... while the other half couln't if they wanted to because of their gender alone. Nobody, of either gender (or any category) is allowed to rape children.
Your premise is wrong. An adult having sex with a minor is not necessarily rape, though it often is (as I stated above). And as for gay marriage becoming legal being used as an argument for your point of few, it is flawed because 40 years ago whites and blacks couldn't get married. And gays certainly couldn't. Now interracial marriage is totally legal and gay marriage is on its way to becoming legal. The way I see it, its only a matter of time before bestiality and pedophilia are legal as well.
I still don't see your connection with beastiality and homosexuality (any more than, say, interracial marriage) ... and of course there is the added problem with pedophilia that any relationships are intrinsically temporary. Once they age enough, the attraction is intrinsically not there for pedophiles.
People who are attracted to animals often exhibit these desires at a young age, just as homosexuals do and they are connected by the notion that they are both with you seemingly from birth and that they both are directly dealing with sexual orientation. As for pedophilia, that was a good point but my argument remains as the loss of attraction after a certain age is comparable to the lack of attraction to females.
Its all quite depends on simply what is seen as acceptable. Some people are prone to voilence, some from probably a very early age ... but I would fail to see how one could then argue violence is acceptable. Rights really end where they infringe on the rights of another, and in both violence and pedophilia ... its a pretty clear case. Homosexuality is just dealing with consensual sex between adults (and in the example of having sex with men, half of the population is allowed worldwide).
If anything, disallowing homosexuals their relationships legally (or even just not supporting them in that) just leads to problems ... for gays and straights. You can't, how hard you try, to get people to stop having sex .... and if they can't in open relationships, they WILL live second lives (a huge cause of disease, and brings it into the hetero population as well).
And beastiality as a natural, inborn attraction?? Humans, like all animals, are in almost all cases vastly more attracted to their same species. Homosexuals still have that human attraction (and again an attraction that about half of all heterosexuals have), its really just a difference in gender. And I would think that process that developes your attraction to males or females could much more easily go wrong (hormone levels in the womb can do it) than one that would get the species wrong.
PS: I know most of your inquiery in this is trying to understand how a group fighting for their situation could not support others fighting for something that could be associated with the first group. I really don't think that dilemma extends only/primarily to gays though ... especially with topics that are about as foreign and troubling/disturbing to them as anyone else.
Sexuality is a category ... sure, but so is religion (or race, nationality, disability, etc). Plenty of feuding there too.
Not all pedophiles are raping children, it is classified as rape by our laws and not necessarily what the children feel. Often it is, don't get me wrong, and I certainly don't condone it. But my issue is that gays go around saying they are being discriminated against and put down all the time, but they are putting down pedophiles while they are doing this.
If people want to lower the age of consent, thats an entierly different argument ... but pedophiles (labeled by the attraction, not just happening to have relationships with those a few years younger than legal) are attracted to quite young children. I doubt consent laws will ever go low enough for them, and there are of course a bunch of other issues. I still would call it rape and can't condone it.
I don't think the consent age should be lowered any where near that much. I think this stuff should be illegal BUT I just don't understand how gay people can say that they are born this way and that it is their right to have marriage, while not allowing other people who have similar but distinctly different issues. But in the scheme of things it doesn't really bother me that much. I don't care what gays do, as there are much more important things for us all to ponder.
You are a HYPOCRITE! The title of this video seems to suggest that you think that gay marriage is above incestuous marriage.Isn't that What Christians do with gay vs straight marriage? Truth is if you support gay marrigae then you would be a bloody hypocrite not to support incestuous marriage.After all love is love and you can't help who you fall in love with right? are you suggesting that gay love is above a incestuous love? not very equal rights sounding to me you bloody hypocrite
@Groudie101 See this where all you think that it's the same where it is not you sad lost sheep. Look all we want is to be able to walk down the street and not have to worry about one of you closet cases running up to US and bashing US calling US faggots when you're more of a fag than we are. At least we're open about ourselves. Why don't you go talk an open mided person from Europe or Asia about it and tell them it's the same. See what happens when you do. I wish I could be there.
@Groudie101 What a stupid comment, there is a big difference in saying, sorry you can't marry your sister, then saying sorry you can't marry the gender you are attracted too. one is saying you can not marry a small group of close family members, there other is saying sorry you can't marry half the worlds population. its also sexist to ban gay marriage, you can marry a woman, my question to you is why can I? because I am a woman? telling me i can not do something because of my sex is sexist.
@Fireflygamer gays are a very small population in comparison to heteros, they are not half the worlds population, not even close to it.therefore your arguement is not valid, heteros are the norm, gays are outside of the norm.You are a hypocrite, homosexuality is not any more normal or natural than incest.i will agree pedophilia is slightly different because it's an animal.but all 3 are still abominable!!!!!!
@JYoung3rd your just stupid,i was saying about half the world is made up of the other sex, also about half the worlds population is attracted to women, that is a completely normal thing to happen, sure 90% of those are men but being attracted to women is a normal part of the humanity it happens in about 50% of the population. lets say 5% of the world is gay, that still leaves millions of people that your saying i cant marry, with incest its it would be under 10 people in most cases.
@Fireflygamer Exacty 95% of the world (men & women) are heterosexual.hence why your arguement is retarded, there is a huge disperity there.hetero people think their family members are attractive too but they don't want to take it past that point because they know it's abnormal & the same thing is true about gays.what difference does it make if it's a few million or 15?Wrong is wrong period.human being are hardwired to be with the opposite sex period.
@JYoung3rd your not getting it, its normal for a person to be attracted to women right? or are you denying that its normal and natural for a person to be attracted to women, just because it rare for women to be attracted to other women dose not make being attracted to women abnormal or unnatural. I agree humans are hard wired to be attracted to one sex or the other and in rare cases about 8-10% of the time they are hard wired to be attracted to the same sex or both, thats not wrong.
@Fireflygamer you're not getting it, i already told you attraction is normal but crossing that boundary & commiting lewd & obscene sexual acts with someone of the same sex or someone in your family is ABNORMAL, hence why 100% of hetero women do not act pass their attraction for another woman of the same sex or family member.do you understand?
@JYoung3rd lol not every woman is attracted sexually to other women, im not sexually attracted to every pretty woman i see ether. I can recognize that my best friend and sister are sexy, but that dose not mean i want to fuck them. I fall in love with other women and have no interest of feelings toward men at all. The women i fall in love with i do want to make love to, but its only those women, not the women i have other relationships with, like my sister and my friends.
@JYoung3rd Bestiality is when you have sex with animals pedophilia is when you have sex with children. about 50% of the world is attracted to women, this is a normal thing to happen, its rare in other women but its still natural and normal for a person to be attracted to a woman. Having sex with children and animals is different because nether can consent to it and it cause emotional harm and torment to the child or animal.
@Fireflygamer you think i don't know that?lol yes, a innocent attraction is normal, homosexual acts are not any more normal then incestuous acts.You are the worst kind of hypocrite that a person can be.
what proof do you have that it causes emotional harm/torment to an animal?
@JYoung3rd What proof do i have that having unconcentual sex with a 12 year old causes harm and torment to that child. are you seriously asking me this? how about the testimony of the victims of pedophilia. as far as having sex with animals it can be seen in there behavior after they have been abused. I do not think you understand the difference between pedophilia, incest and bestiality. you might want to get an education on sexuality before you start making comments on it.
@Fireflygamer are you a complete fool? i didn't say pedophilia was ok.go back & read what i said.
in mexico they have donkey shows where a person (usually a woman) will preform a sex act on the donkey.there is no proof in theior behavior that these donkeys act different or are traumatized afterward.
@JYoung3rd you side the - .i will agree pedophilia is slightly different because it's an animal.
what did you mean by that if you were not mixing up pedophilia with bestiality. I have read the studies of animals that have been abused in this way, the often act more skittish and will often not socialize with the other animals choosing to go off alone in one side of the pen. This study was with male human on animals, it might be different with masturbating a donkey.
@Fireflygamer a normal woman may think her best friend or sister/mother is pretty but she doesn't want to commit lewd & obscene sexual acts with them.so therefore you arguement about attraction is purely false.
@JYoung3rd no most women are not sexually attracted or fall in romantic love with other women. The can recognize that other women are sexy but have no desire to make love to them. There is a difference between recognizing someone is attractive and feeling drawn to them in a sexual way. I can recognize when men are sexy, but i feel no draw or desire to be with them, that is the difference, its the feeling. are you telling me your drawn sexually & have sexual feeling for the same sex?
@Groudie101 What a stupid comment, there is a big difference in saying, sorry you can't marry your sister, then saying sorry you can't marry the gender you are attracted too. one is saying you can not marry a small group of close family members, there other is saying sorry you can't marry half the worlds population. its also sexist to ban gay marriage, you can marry a woman, my question to you is why can I? because I am a woman? telling me i can not do something because of my sex is sexist.
did you know that their are now some "scientists" (as reported in a recent USA today article) who are starting to argue that pedophilia [sexual] orientation is "natural and may have a reasonable biological basis. That is to say now that these 'scientist' are arguing that, like homosexuals, pedophiles are "born that way"
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
It upsets me to hear the arguments trying compare gay marriage to polygamy, molesting children or to having sex with animals. Gay people are not asking for a new right, they are asking for the same right that everyone else has. Polygamy is something that is completely different because it is not legal for ANYONE. Having sex with animals and molesting children is already illegal for all. Gays are not asking for some NEW crazy right, they are asking for EQUAL treatment. There is a BIG difference!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Two consenting adults should be allowed to enter into a binding legal agreement concerning their future and their lives together.
Polygamy and Inscest have documented effects on the physical and mental health of children. No study has ever shown that two men or two women raising a child together has any negative effect on a child other than the discrimination the family faces.
Hate? Too much hate, too much rage, when will both sides learn that "love is all you need."
To the maker of this video why is incest wrong if i as a man love my brother and want to have sex with him why should it be bad. Why are you discrinaing against incest people. And why should polygamy be bad, you preach people hate but yet you hate another group how stupid is that. Is it not love between 2 consenting adults. Please practice what yo preach.
Why is incest not comparable and why is polygam not comparable please give me a valid reason why is it not all about love. And is it not animal and human nature to have more than one sex partner as well. These people are all grown adults who love each other. Why should they be excluded in society.
Incest and polygamy can't be compared to homosexuality for a couple reasons, the main one being that polygamy and incest have nothing to do with sexual orientation. Also, it's very well known that gay people can not change their orientation, strong biological evidence points to people being developed as gay.. We know for a fact it's not a choice. Polygamy can exist between two gay people but that would make them gay polygamist - has nothing to do with their sexual orientation.
I mean tot say gay people can be polygamists rather.. cont- but it has everything to do with their choice to be polygamist.. In nature there are many cases where animals choose one sexual partner, animal sexuality is just as complex as human sexuality. Many societies practice polygamy, our society just happens to be one that generally shuns it.. Incest is almost never accepting in society anywhere. I'm not saying that it's right or wrong, I'm just saying it's not the same as homosexuality.
Homosexuality is a genetic disorder by logic as the purpose of human existence, as with all other animals, is to stay alive and reproduce. Gay couples can not reproduce without the help a member of the opposite sex and therefore, if not for our technology and adoption agencies (which do not naturally exist), they would die out. Gays are born gay, and thus it is possible for them to pass the genetic defects to their children. Eventually the human race will be extinct, but what should we do?
In fact pedophilia is more biologically correct than gay marriage. the only thing that makes it seem wrong to us is our age old morals that gays tell us we should abandon.lol
Wait why do you find incest wrong? What if two brothers love each other? Well? What if a brother was separated from another brother for a long time and when they met they had gay sexual feelings for each other? IS THAT WRONG? How about pedophilia? According to the gay belief that marriage should be between two people that love each other and not by the old structured law of marriage. Then what if the child and the older man loved each other? Who are you to define love? How is it any different?
INCEST AND PEDOPHELIA IS JUST PLAIN SICK AND WRONG AND FUCKING ABUSE TO ANOTHER HUMAN
but gay marrige is fine hey if there in love its there buisness really i support that and hey some people can handle a million wives like mormans(racist biggots) but hey i dont see anything wrong with polygomy well it takes the point out of marrige but okay thats the persons choice not the goverments
Nature apparently made a mistake when it made people homosexuals. Matching accessories that don't work the way complementary accessories do. I guess Mother Nature makes mistakes. At least homosexuals can make the choice to joing the heterosexual gene pool and enjoy normalcy.
thats really dumb they have the right to exist as human beings and why do you care about shit that doesnt effect your life i mean seriously the reason i think gays are lucky is cause they cant get pregnat all the time like straight people like myself but hey thats life get used to it
To answer your title question: No, Warren's comparisons of gay marriage to other taboo relationships did not get him invited to invoke Obama's inauguration. However, I recommend you spend some time researching more probable reasons for his involvement...
Krypt--Thanks for the comments. We all can tend to get caught up in an issue from our POV that fingers fly faster on the keyboard than does the checking mechanism that usually discards things best left unsaid.
We all obviously expect to hold onto our own convictions, while at the same time hoping they shed light for others as to where we coming from and why it is we feel as we do on certain issues.
His comments regarding a man cleaving to his wife, along with Paul's referring to sins one can be washed clean from by the blood of Jesus, give, for a vast number of Christians, the indication that that relationship is to be between two people of the opposite sex, and that one can walk away from sins, although with great difficulty at times.
And I guess I'd have to refer back to scripture, not to make a case for laws against homosexual marriage.
The picture of marriage that we're given in the Bible is akin to that of the spiritual union Christ has with His church.
Just as Christ doesn't go off and pair up with the Buddhist faith or the Shinto faith (He stays faithful to one spouse, the Church--not RomCath), His ideal for us is to remain faithful to one spouse for a lifetime. Granted, divorce often comes in.
I think the 'pleasure' argument is a distraction from what being gay really is... Its not about sex or shooting a load! Sexually, I am BiSexual. I have had sex with women. Im turned on by women. I can not fall in love with a woman. I never got 'butterflies in my stomach' from a woman. A woman never inspired me to more selfless, or to put anothers well-being before my own. You have to understand, if I lost my penis right now, never could have sex again... Id still be gay.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Why is that? I dont get Bisexuals. Why do they want it both ways? to get fucked and to fuck. Maybe its an obsession with fucking. Why dont you just get a fat guy with bitch tits that likes it up the ass. Thats way, you got tits, you can get fucked by him, and you can fuck him.
. . .assuming one accepts the Word as speaking out against homosexuality and something that someone can be justified from, as Paul states in Corinthians.
But damn carnaco2, u just cant keep away from quoting the bible to promote a secular position! lol While I respect your personal reverence of the script, its just irrelevent in determining public policy
One could also say that if homosexuality is a choice and viewed as a sin by the Bible (I realize we disagree, but. . .), that the attraction of the pleasure that comes from homosexual sex is a powerful force to resist. Just as--and I'm not equating the two here, just another example--the pleasure that pedophiles get from their acts, certainly a sin, is too great for them to want to cease and desist. Better to give in to the pleasure than to be obedient to the Word. . .
Well, I think that just because you dont know what its like to be gay. Honestly. But in your defence, I'll say this; If I wasnt gay, Id prob be just as ignorant about it as you. Thats not an insult. I just mean ignorant as far as lack of knowledge. If I wasnt gay, Id be the 1st to critisize it, Im sure.... Funny how God works. In the end, I feel that not only would my life be empty if I denied who I love, but it would b living a lie to those who love me most. My family...
Carnaco, I wrote a couple replies, but today is a busy day so I wont be around. I just wanted to say Iv recognized a change in your tone in debating this with me. I know your position hasnt changed, but u seem to be more respectful and I appreciate it.
But I think John Stewart really summed up this debate best with Mike Huckabee, when after Huckabee stated that being gay is a choice, Stewart replied, "so when did u decide to be straight?".
U can choose not to have gay sex, but that doesnt mean u are choosing not to be gay, it means u are in the closet. And that has disastrous effects on society. Ive known ppl who couldnt handle hiding anymore. After getting married & having kids, they had to admit they never really loved mommy. Its just sad.
DOMA is one example of a religious belief that has been codified into law. Another would be the ban on partial birth abortion. There's no way to say that any of our laws didn't have as their genesis something to do with religion.
The same could just as easily be done with homosexual marriage, with a bill passed into law banning it at the federal level, then ok'd by the SCOTUS. That would validate what over 30 states have already written into their constitutions.
Again, just because a law happens to reflect a religious belief doesnt mean it was passed by religious justification. You simply need to show more that religious conviction to pass secular laws. Otherwise that could be said about anything.
You can say that outlawing theft was an example of religious belief, but, it isnt, its because we cant have a functioning society where theft is legal. U cant say the same about gay marriage.
U can try, but there is no proof or reasonable argument against it.
Religion is, indeed, a choice, but protection for religion is written into the Constitution within the 1st amendment. There's no such guarantee in the Constitution for homosexual marriage, polygamy, incest, etc.
Thats true and freedom of religion is a cornerstone of our society. But, if someone is discriminated against because of their religious beliefs, lets say in the work place by refusing employment, it is a violation of their civil rights.
The point here is that civil rights do not ONLY apply to biologically identified characteristics. Thats just a fact, its not disputable.
When I said thats true, I meant to the degree that religion is protected under our Constitution. There are many ppl who are more eductated on Constitutional Law than you or I who say that the Constitution DOES guarantee equal marriage for gays but that was changed with DOMA.
So saying, "There's no such guarantee in the Constitution for gay marriage" is controversial at best, but its definately not a fact...
I understand your point. You'd then have arguments raised about the nature of "family", whether homosexuals can/should be parents, much of it coming from personal feelings unrelated to the Bible.
And there's a large segment of society that sees homosexuality as a choice (argument for another time). If so, civil rights/equality shouldn't be brought in. If it's biological, like with mixed marriages, that's something else. But many non-believing people will go with nurture not nature.
Well the family argument is a big one. Many ppl feel that allowing gay marriage is detrimental to the family structure we have now. As you might imagine, I disagree.
While the issue of homosexuality being a choice is intresting, the truth is neither side knows for sure. I can tell u my being gay isnt a choice, but I cant prove it. N vice versa. But, it doesnt really matter. Civil rights are afforded for choice based groups also. Look at religious discrimination. Religion is a choice.
The beliefs of all of us come into play and what's in those beliefs goes into much of our legislation. Some of those beliefs may be based on scripture, but it doesn't necessarily mean a government endorsement of religion. Those of us with differing beliefs have the freedom to push for laws reflecting those beliefs. It will remain a struggle for both parties to any issue. Some people will change their views, others will continue as they always have. But both will work for what they believe in.
I agree, our beliefs motivate us, especially in a democracy. What I am saying is this; In this country, you cant say "homosexuality is forbidden in the bible, so therefor, it should be forbidden in our laws". That is a theocracy. You would have to give a REASON why homosexuality should be forbidden. The same is true about gay marriage. You cant just make it illegal because the bible says so... with anything.
I think all of this is acceptable talk in churchs, or religious forums, (but sad and damaging nonthe less), but it has no place is determining our laws.
If homosexuality is a sin, it isn't something to be labeled a "civil right", at least not on the part of a Christian. I don't, and will never support homosexual "marriage". That's basically it. People can call people with my views a bigot or intolerant or whatever they want. I feel God loves them to much to let them continue in what He sees as sin, nor does he want me to enable them to do that, either.
I can't be in the position of condoning ungodly legislation. Some may feel that way about war. I feel the Bible sanctions war in certain cases.
For me, if Paul says homosexuality is something a sinner was washed clean of, I can't then go and support legislation that only sanctions the performance of those very acts God wants all people to walk away from. No, we can't legislate salvation. But biblical concepts have been legislated. Yes, some of them are ethical and some, but not all. . .
Well carnaco, I think you're in for a difficult ride then here in America. This system is not set up to just pass 'Godly legislation". We all have to live together, Christian and Atheist, Jew and Taoist, ect. What u are proposing is a theocracy. The thing is ,btw, I think Christianity will flourish MORE under the system we have now, through choice, than yours, which is Force. If u want to vote according to your scriptural interpretation, than do it. Just dont expect every1 else to...
I was curious if a change on your part after 911 was due to a changed interpretation of the Word. You seem to be saying you still feel war or retaliation wasn't justifiable scripturally, yet wanted to see something done, then asked forgiveness for that.
I'll basically say that, as a Christian, I can't support any laws that would condone what I see the Word prohibiting, be it murder, incest, homosexual marriage, etc. You may feel some of these are ethical issues and no-brainers, but. . .
You know what carnaco? I can understand that. Honestly. I also dont think u should be forced to change your mind on feeling that I am immoral because Im gay (No law could do that anyway). I just dont think the law should treat me that way. I know that u think GM is wrong because of your religious conviction, I dont think Its right or legal for the law to deny me that 'right' or whatever u want to call it, because of yours or others religious beliefs. My religious beliefs count here too...
Krypt: Society has drawn a line at many rights in the past, and society has been wrong before as they are now.
Society being wrong now would be in your humble opinion. Courts didn't protect the "rights" of polygamists, a minority. And it's to be hoped that California's court upholds Prop 8. Sadly, there's probably nothing they can do about the "marriages" that took place before the ban, but they at least can put an end to any future attempts to create new "rights".
Carnaco2, All I can do is keep repeating myself over n over. Do u like that? Is this intresting u? Its not fair to make gay ppl justify their marriages by every other group that may or may not want theirs justified also. That in itself is discrimination.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you once said you were/are against murder or war, until the loss of close friend/s in 9/11.
If so, what changed your outlook? If murder, or war, was something to be opposed prior to 9/11, why did it suddenly become the thing to support. Was it circumstances, or was it something that could be verified as valid from the Word?
There was nothing in the bible that justified my change. I know you and I have differing views on the 'Word'
Also to clarify, none of my family/friends died there that day. Close though
I just had to be honest with myself. I was not prepared to sit back and let my family and nieghborhood be attacked. Even though I knew lifting the sword wasnt the Godly thing to do. I found no justification, heart or bible, for it, but prayed God forgive me instead. I feel that is the only way 2 approach war.
As I said, society draws lines. And homosexual "marriage" isn't a right it currently wishes to endorse.
If this group had any sense about them, they'd pull the lawyers together and research contract law that would give them everything they currently want, without the badge of marriage. That would include visitation rights, etc. I doubt state and federal tax agencies would look to kindly on tax breaks for them, but they have no need to "marry" to get the goodies they're demanding.
And as I said, there is no rational argument that they be barred from marrying each other with entitlements to those same rights...
Society has drawn a line at many rights in the past, and society has been wrong before as they are now. Thats why civil rights are not voted on by a simple majority. Its really very easy to see...
If the ppl who are trying to "protect the sanctity of marriage" had any REAL sense about THEM, they would be trying to make divorce illegal sinse cleary that is the greater threat to marriage. But their not cause its too hard and its easier to pick on weaker minorities.
Thats 1 reason why courts are in place, to protect minorities from the rule of the mob...
Works perfectly for interracial marriages. Take the name Richard out, though, and put in multiple names and see if it goes as "loving" were a polygamist to say the same thing.
Carnaco2, you're constantly changing the topic of gay marriage to other topics because there really is no rational argument against gay marriage. Your entire argument against gay marriage revolves around your personal religious views and other unrelated topics such as incest. Gay marriage deserves to be reviewed on its own merits. You cant seem to do that...
For example, you say "Take the name Richard out, though, and put in multiple names "...but Mildred Loving didnt...lol
Mildred loving said " I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry."
U may wish she didnt include gay ppl, but the fact remains, she did...
"Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry." (continued)
"Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.
I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about."
Comment on the slippery slope argument. You allow homosexuals today, who's next to say "we're not asking special rights, just 'equal rights'".
Society has rightly condemned homosexuality through the years. Where does a society draw the line and finally say "ENOUGH".
You can argue about legislating biblical morality, but Christians should in no way be pushing for laws that go against what the Word says. At the very least, they should either fight them or remain silent.
You just admitted that gay ppl, as a minority have been discriminated against by society for a long time. Thanx, I already knew that.
We can not disallow rights with the example of precedent. There has been a concerted effort to stifle the entire gay community that predates the movement to liberate it. The success of oppression should not be the argument for further oppression, but the proof required to revolt against it. Since the exaltation of liberty is democracies goal and manifest...
But marriage IS a civil right in itself. According to the 1967 ruling in Loving v Virginia "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man"
Whats really intresting is Mildred Lovings statement regaurding her court cases impact on gay marriage. Mildred Loving spent time in jail for violating the anti interacial marriage laws...
The argument that marriage isn't a right but a 'special consideration', so gay ppl should shut up n be glad with the rights they have, is the most nonsensicle one of all. If you weren't allowed to get a state drivers license because you were mormon or presbyterian, would that be discrimination? Of course it would. Maybe being allowed to drive isn't a right, but being denied that license from the state because of your religion would be a violation of your civil rights.
Re: judicial review. Obviously, Jerry Brown has gone against his oath of office in saying he won't support Prop 8 in court. But I have no doubt there'll be someone recognized as having standing to argue the case for it. And it could very well end up in the SCOTUS. Then, you've got the issue of a possible constitutional amendment.
They have the same right to get married as anyone else. All they have to do is find a member of the opposite sex and they comply with the law. At least 30 states now say that's the way it is, and more are being added to the list.
I dont think the Californis Supreme Court will view things the same way you do. The ban on Gay marriage was illegal, in more than one way. Its inevitable, gay ppl will be allowed to marry. Its just a matter of time.
Well, you'll still have to explain why homosexuals should get special treatment ahead of polygamists & consenting incestuous adults.
Then, if you want true separation of church and state, work for the removal of "In God We Trust" (gee, how did THAT get to be our national motto?), relgious symbols from the Supreme Court bldg, not to mention prayers opening Congress, "so help me God" at the end of oaths. You've got work ahead of you. & homosexuals will have to wait for other groups in line.
Why? Why do gay ppl have to justify every group that may or may not also want equal rights under the law if they are given them??? Its unfair. The same argument can be put forth for allowing black ppl civil rights, or women. Gay ppl deserve equal rights, period...
I think u have in backwards carnaco2, these other groups will have to wait in line. Gay rights already have its appointed day in court this March. When millions of incestous relationships throng to the steps of City Hall demanding their case be reviewed, then they will be. But thats not where things are at.
So u can say your statement applies very well to your arguement. Gay marriage is up for judicial review. All these other cases will have to wait there turn.... once they exsist that is, lol
Pedophilia, crucifixion, slavery, throwing new borns off cliffs, persecution of christians, incest, polygamy, worshipping the sun, racism, stoning, child labor, Drilling holes in the head of headache victims, pulling beating hearts out of virgins to appease god, the belief that the world is traveling on the back of a turtle, burning scientists at the stake, prison terms for interracial marriage, Fucking underwater to aviod pregnancy & suicide parties.
I have an Idea. How about we invent a country where we seperate church and state?
The government won't be allowed to tell ppl how and what to worship, so long as nobody gets hurt (obviously). In turn, the church and religious interpretation will not be allowed to shape secular law. Instead the law will be based on the premise that all men are created equal and the protection of individual liberty. Churchs will even be exempt from paying taxes, unless they breach that seperation...
Polygamists would say "We love each other and we all consent to it", the same thing we're hearing from homosexuals. Why deprive 10 women from sharing the love of 1 man? Why deprive 2 men from sharing their love together, however unnatural it may be? Same concept. Polygamists have no "civil rights" to multiple partners. Homosexuals have NO "civil rights" to same-sex unions.
"Thou shalt not kill"(murder). A religious belief that the US recognizes as law. Many societies believe it too. If only we did, it would still be law.
"Cleave unto your wife", 1 man, 1 woman. We're well within our rights of legislating yet another Biblical command.
"Such were some of you". Paul's liberating statement that one doesn't have to live in the sin of their past life, homosexuality included. Not a law but, like murder and polygamy, a biblical concept that CAN be legislated.
Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet, and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
My problem isnt w/ Paul, just those who pervert his message...
Agreed. It's done every day in churches that seem to be "seeker-friendly" to homosexuals. When I Cor 6:11 says "such were some of you" to a list of sins, including homosexuality, they'll insist it means this, or that, just NOT homosexuality or homosexual relations, since that means it's a sin and can be walked away from.
The same with the Romans reference to government being given the power of the sword. Swords can be used to kill people under the authority of the state.
Carnaco2, U seem to be unable to stop commenting me.
Your points are obviously of your own opinion and in America, we're allowed to have our own religious beliefs and practise, so Im not arguing yours. You can believe what u want But, not everyone in America believes in God, or is Christian, and they have the right to not have their laws shaped by our conflicting religious interpretation.
And I was a pacifist untill a bunch of religious fanatics who want the world under a theocratic tyranny knocked down the WTC with my family and friends in it. I knew that war and murder was wrong. I still do, I cant deny what Christ said about it no matter how inconvenient it is...
But, I will sin if need be, cause they need to be stopped. I just dont pervert the bible to justify my sin like you do. I will kill to protect my family n country cause Im American/human.I dont pretend its Christian.
No need to pretend. If you can't deny what Christ said about it, why is it not Christian? If Paul says the government has been given the power of the sword, it would be going against the Word to say war is murder. Yes, people do get killed, and yes, there are wars that are totally unnecessary. I lost many classmates in Vietnam, but there's no way I can say war goes against the Word of God. He doesn't want violence, but the Bible clearly gives the government the power of the sword.
If Paul says murder is OK, than Paul is going against Christ. So u choose, I already did. You're just lying to yourself if u think murder is OK in Jesus' eyes. But u were lying to yourself yesterday when u said Warrens statement that marriage has only been 1man1woman for 5,000yrs was a matter of interpretation. You lie to me, you lie to yourself, Im not shocked that you lie to God and every1 else on here in his name.
You so easily skim past Paul's statement in Romans since it seems to authorize the killing of anyone. You rationalize the passage in Mark on one wife and say nothing about the passage in Genesis from which it comes. Not a word as to Paul's statement about people being washed and justified from a list of sins, homosexuality among them. It's as if the Pauline epistles have been ripped out of the Bible. Paul contradicting Christ on murder? Fat chance. The Word contains NO contradictions.
"should the laws of the land in the U.S. reflect the bibles position on those who don't believe Jesus was the son of God?
Should it be against the law to not believe that Jesus was Christ? Obviously, there is no greater sin. "
You're apparenly not reading my posts. I'll repeat for your benefit that the Bible tells us that the act of salvation is a work of the Holy Spirit. As such, it can't be legislated. If you feel it's a greater sin not to do that push for your theocracy.
Oh trust me, I read your posts. Im just proving what a hypocrite you are...
Its more important to a legislate against a less important sin than to legislate against the most deadly sin like denying Christ?
You go ahead and use the bible to conceal your cowardice, but its obvious the only REAL reason u cant make non belief in Christ against the law is because too many ppl dont believe in Christ or would EVER let that law be passed.
So instead u spend your day kicking around gays, its easy...
Answer me this on your fallacious question about legislating salvation. Do YOU believe salvation is an act of the Holy Spirit? Why would you think any Christian would push legislation requiring something only the Holy Spirit can do? We pass laws against things we agree are wrong or immoral like murder, incest or homosexual acts. Are you making an effort to grieve the Holy Spirit by demanding someone legislate what only He can do, just to lend credence to your support of same-sex relations?
Look, your pushing this on me, but its not my position, its yours. I dont claim the Holy Spirit needs legislative assistance, u do. We dont outlaw murder cause its in the bible, we outlaw it cause its wrong.
If u think the love I have for my bf is immoral or because I dont pray enough, your wrong. Hes the very answer of my prayers to God, n keeps me CLOSER to him. Its not about sex anymore than ur straight relations are. Prob even less so. U couldnt last with what we've been through. dont judge
On what basis do you say murder is wrong? Moral positions developed from sources outside the Bible? The Bible tells us our conscience speaks to us about things that our wrong. Many come to their conclusions on murder or homosexuality based on the fact their own conscience screams to them that it's inherently wrong or sinful.
If u need me to explain why murder is wrong, you'll never get it.
If u need me to explain what love is, you'll never understand it.
If u need the bible to tell u who Jesus is, you'll never know him, till he reveals himself to u like he did to me.
Im done with u Carnaco2. I even feel bad for u, but I feel worse for the ppl who suffer from your ignorance and bigotry. If I have to explain these things, I have nothing more to say.
Give Paul the credence he deserves as a writer of Scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit. Don't reject his clear commands because they seem to go against your own prejudices or seem to label certain people as sinners.
Don't pick and choose the scriptures that are comfortable.
And a similar thing could be said about those you encourage to continue in the sin of homosexuality, when Scripture clearly cries out against it.
Paul also talks about homosexuality as a sin that people have walked away from and been washed and justified in the blood of Jesus from. Since you give the impression that the red letter words are the more important ones, your cutesy about two men loving each other wouldn't pass the smell test with the Apostle Paul. Since he spent a considerable time with Jesus in the wilderness, I'd rather go with his words than yours.
In essence, you're trying to legislate your own Biblical morality on others, something you condemn in those who oppose homosexuality. Cloaking it as an "equal rights" issue doesn't cut it if you still believe the Bible speaks out for it. We all have the right to push what we feel is morally correct. I feel homosexuality is morally incorrect and a sin and will fight against laws for homosexual "marriage". You can do the same the other way.
Carnaco2, you are a hypocrite in every sense. I do not/did not use the bible to prevent other ppl from following their belief in God. You have used the bible to justify taking away MY right to follow God according to MY belief. There is NO biblical justification for you to do that, no matter how you twist the bible to further your discrimination.
No matter who u bend it, we are not doing the same thing. No one told u to marry another man. U told me I couldnt.
Legislation mandating belief in one particular God is nowhere mandated in the Bible. There's nothing there, however, about legislating Godly morality.
If you choose to rail against the clear command to "cleave unto his wife", there's no way you could condone any Christian following the verse from trying to push legislation in support of 1 man 1 woman marriage.
And if you've got a thing against killing, Paul talks about the state being given authority to use arms for our defense.
To God, sin is sin. And the Bible also clearly states that the act of salvation is done through the convicting work of the Holy Spirit, not through legislation. That's a non-issue. If you want to grade sins and then legislate, push all you want for a theocracy.
You're the theocracy advocate here. And you also just used Paul and the bible to justify murder. We both know you aren't even a Christian at this point. Jesus clearly says that any1 who trys to save his life will lose his life and that no murderer has a place in heaven. You dont follow Christ, u pretend to follow Paul, and even he would reject your doctrine...
Using Paul to justify murder? That's a reach. Romans 13:4 says the government has the power of the sword. Doesn't condemn that fact. This verse has been used to justify the waging of war on the part of governments (murder in your eyes, apparently).
As Col. Potter would have said on M*A*S*H, "you've got a burr under your saddle". And it looks like it's the Apostle Paul. Speak to Romans 13:4 and complain to Paul if you want to kvetch about war being murder when the state has been given the authority by Paul to use arms.
Since neither you nor I have any direct experience of the after death, I submit we are dependent on the claims of putative authorities.Based on my experience & those of others, I vehemently disagree that spiritual transgressions do not have infinite attributes.U appear naive about life-have you examined your own immoral experiences? Have you read the Bible? Hatred, murder,rape, lies,greed,exploitations, theft are so evil Jesus warned they lead to everlasting torment, darkness,weeping & distress
shieldsff 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Rick is right, gays are not very smart.
TheDukeljk 2 months ago
Man, goodasyou I hope you die of aids.
TheDukeljk 4 months ago
@TheDukeljk I hope you get aids form the whores you sleep with, its just as easy to get aids form a woman as a hero guy as it is gay men, it seems like the only luck ones are the dykes like me, we really don't have to worry to much about STDs. Like i said i hope you get aids, but I hope you don't die form it for a very very long time, I hope you just waste away hated and forgotten like your stupid ideas. and yes before you ask I am evil, no one believes me because I'm so cute but yes i am evil.
Fireflygamer 4 months ago
really......dont hate on Rick.
Phatcow07 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Christians do not want to limit anyone's human rights or personal dignity. On the contrary, Christians want to see our society advance and become fairer and more equal. We are concerned with the well being of our society and more than anything want to see all people come to a perfect understanding of self and freedom from any manner of spiritual bondage by the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. who is above everything else in all creation
shieldsff 5 months ago
Groudie101- 1
goodasyou- 0
spector1991 6 months ago
So who are you LOL. you have 10000 views on youtube and this man has the most selling book OF ALL TIME. Oh and he STILL gave the invocation and STILL has about 25k attending his church.... Oh and his wife had cancer and was healed. LOL dude get a life.
onebadgs400 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
PROOF...its not a Myth:
wwwf4wpeaceDOTde
F4 World Peace by Cultural-Change
and rocking The New Age Of aquarius 2012
Peace All
Inshallah
Aniti-Christa-Aisha-klein aka sun
f4wpeace 9 months ago
you do realise the hypocrisy of a gay-marriage advocate dissallowing incest marriage right? the fundamental arguement for gay marriage is "don't judge the love between 2 consenting adults" or "you can't help who you love" .. Look i know it's ludacris to compare it to pedophelia because the child is not consenting, but with incest you are still judging two consenting parties that "can't help" who they love.
johnchapterseventeen 9 months ago
Incest = Should be legalized as long as couples know that their children may have birth defects. They should have the liberty to make love, if they like.
Polygamy = Why not? They may have more kids, but it should be okay if they have the spending power to raise all of them in a healthy household.
Pedophilia = Euuuhhh . . . Society's not ready for it yet. People view it as a bad thing, so the kids think that they are to blame. If we were open to it [like the Greeks], the wouldn't be f'ed up.
TheSanguineOne 11 months ago
Comment removed
kevinguy91 1 year ago
Incest = birth defects
Polygamy = 1 man is worth 2 or more women
Pedophilia = scarring sexually-UNDERdeveloped children.
gay = pure love.
kevinguy91 1 year ago
@kevinguy91 what a dumb fagg you are
Kilikiaci2009 1 year ago
@Kilikiaci2009 stfu, you closet-case.
kevinguy91 11 months ago
@kevinguy91 oh what happened to your favourite infertile couples argument? (for incest marriage) and as for polygamy, it doesn't have to be 1 man and many women, it can be vice versa or a bunch of gay men or gay women.
y100269 1 year ago
@y100269 i never said ONLY 1 man and 2 women. Read before speaking.
kevinguy91 11 months ago
Comparing Gay marriage to pedophilia is a little over the top, but not by far. It is on the say page as incest and polygamy. How can some one say I should be able to marry anyone I want, but then say others can't.
ProphetGuardian 1 year ago
I just love the way christians pick and choose what they want out of the bible.
Yes that book says to kill gays. It also says to kill people who work on Sundays.
I will take the bible more seriously when somebody goes to a Walmart on a Sunday and kills all the workers. Guess we will see separation of church and state then eh?
pchtermino1 1 year ago
Good for Rick Warren he forgot to mention beastilty!
lucy9359 1 year ago
It's like saying killing and eating animals is on the same level as killing and eating a human. Assuming your not a vegan, you can see the flaw in this logic.
RobbytheLion 2 years ago
I'm not religious so don't take it that way but, if the gays are going to say they are born gay then what right do they have to say that pedophiles are not born pedophiles? Why should what they want be legal and not what others want?
MahDeerHunter 2 years ago
Almost any psychologist will tell you that hardly any exclusive pedophile can stop their attractions towards children ... not to mention gain attraction to adults. "Born that way" ... I don't know ... but it seems pretty permanent from a fairly early age. The differeance is that pedophiles rape children. We are talking about two consenting adults having a relationship when we are talking about gay rights.
bEEarCUB 2 years ago
And, of course, the premis of it is a bit different. IE, half the population is (or will) be able to marry an adult male in any state ... while the other half couln't if they wanted to because of their gender alone. Nobody, of either gender (or any category) is allowed to rape children.
bEEarCUB 2 years ago
Your premise is wrong. An adult having sex with a minor is not necessarily rape, though it often is (as I stated above). And as for gay marriage becoming legal being used as an argument for your point of few, it is flawed because 40 years ago whites and blacks couldn't get married. And gays certainly couldn't. Now interracial marriage is totally legal and gay marriage is on its way to becoming legal. The way I see it, its only a matter of time before bestiality and pedophilia are legal as well.
MahDeerHunter 2 years ago
I still don't see your connection with beastiality and homosexuality (any more than, say, interracial marriage) ... and of course there is the added problem with pedophilia that any relationships are intrinsically temporary. Once they age enough, the attraction is intrinsically not there for pedophiles.
bEEarCUB 2 years ago
People who are attracted to animals often exhibit these desires at a young age, just as homosexuals do and they are connected by the notion that they are both with you seemingly from birth and that they both are directly dealing with sexual orientation. As for pedophilia, that was a good point but my argument remains as the loss of attraction after a certain age is comparable to the lack of attraction to females.
MahDeerHunter 2 years ago
Its all quite depends on simply what is seen as acceptable. Some people are prone to voilence, some from probably a very early age ... but I would fail to see how one could then argue violence is acceptable. Rights really end where they infringe on the rights of another, and in both violence and pedophilia ... its a pretty clear case. Homosexuality is just dealing with consensual sex between adults (and in the example of having sex with men, half of the population is allowed worldwide).
bEEarCUB 2 years ago
If anything, disallowing homosexuals their relationships legally (or even just not supporting them in that) just leads to problems ... for gays and straights. You can't, how hard you try, to get people to stop having sex .... and if they can't in open relationships, they WILL live second lives (a huge cause of disease, and brings it into the hetero population as well).
bEEarCUB 2 years ago
And beastiality as a natural, inborn attraction?? Humans, like all animals, are in almost all cases vastly more attracted to their same species. Homosexuals still have that human attraction (and again an attraction that about half of all heterosexuals have), its really just a difference in gender. And I would think that process that developes your attraction to males or females could much more easily go wrong (hormone levels in the womb can do it) than one that would get the species wrong.
bEEarCUB 2 years ago
PS: I know most of your inquiery in this is trying to understand how a group fighting for their situation could not support others fighting for something that could be associated with the first group. I really don't think that dilemma extends only/primarily to gays though ... especially with topics that are about as foreign and troubling/disturbing to them as anyone else.
Sexuality is a category ... sure, but so is religion (or race, nationality, disability, etc). Plenty of feuding there too.
bEEarCUB 2 years ago
Not all pedophiles are raping children, it is classified as rape by our laws and not necessarily what the children feel. Often it is, don't get me wrong, and I certainly don't condone it. But my issue is that gays go around saying they are being discriminated against and put down all the time, but they are putting down pedophiles while they are doing this.
MahDeerHunter 2 years ago
If people want to lower the age of consent, thats an entierly different argument ... but pedophiles (labeled by the attraction, not just happening to have relationships with those a few years younger than legal) are attracted to quite young children. I doubt consent laws will ever go low enough for them, and there are of course a bunch of other issues. I still would call it rape and can't condone it.
bEEarCUB 2 years ago
I don't think the consent age should be lowered any where near that much. I think this stuff should be illegal BUT I just don't understand how gay people can say that they are born this way and that it is their right to have marriage, while not allowing other people who have similar but distinctly different issues. But in the scheme of things it doesn't really bother me that much. I don't care what gays do, as there are much more important things for us all to ponder.
MahDeerHunter 2 years ago
Incest is a sin, homasexual// Liezbean is a
Sin, and any other thing that is against the
Word of God. REPENT!
BrothersamDavis 2 years ago
FUK gays i hate them
DlABL0 2 years ago
You are a HYPOCRITE! The title of this video seems to suggest that you think that gay marriage is above incestuous marriage.Isn't that What Christians do with gay vs straight marriage? Truth is if you support gay marrigae then you would be a bloody hypocrite not to support incestuous marriage.After all love is love and you can't help who you fall in love with right? are you suggesting that gay love is above a incestuous love? not very equal rights sounding to me you bloody hypocrite
Groudie101 2 years ago 16
@Groudie101 See this where all you think that it's the same where it is not you sad lost sheep. Look all we want is to be able to walk down the street and not have to worry about one of you closet cases running up to US and bashing US calling US faggots when you're more of a fag than we are. At least we're open about ourselves. Why don't you go talk an open mided person from Europe or Asia about it and tell them it's the same. See what happens when you do. I wish I could be there.
downwithbreeders1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Groudie101 PROOF...its not a Myth:
wwwf4wpeaceDOTde
F4 World Peace by Cultural-Change
and rocking The New Age Of aquarius 2012
Peace All
Inshallah
Aniti-Christa-Aisha-klein aka sun
f4wpeace 9 months ago
@Groudie101 What a stupid comment, there is a big difference in saying, sorry you can't marry your sister, then saying sorry you can't marry the gender you are attracted too. one is saying you can not marry a small group of close family members, there other is saying sorry you can't marry half the worlds population. its also sexist to ban gay marriage, you can marry a woman, my question to you is why can I? because I am a woman? telling me i can not do something because of my sex is sexist.
Fireflygamer 4 months ago
@Fireflygamer gays are a very small population in comparison to heteros, they are not half the worlds population, not even close to it.therefore your arguement is not valid, heteros are the norm, gays are outside of the norm.You are a hypocrite, homosexuality is not any more normal or natural than incest.i will agree pedophilia is slightly different because it's an animal.but all 3 are still abominable!!!!!!
JYoung3rd 3 days ago
@JYoung3rd your just stupid,i was saying about half the world is made up of the other sex, also about half the worlds population is attracted to women, that is a completely normal thing to happen, sure 90% of those are men but being attracted to women is a normal part of the humanity it happens in about 50% of the population. lets say 5% of the world is gay, that still leaves millions of people that your saying i cant marry, with incest its it would be under 10 people in most cases.
Fireflygamer 3 days ago
@Fireflygamer Exacty 95% of the world (men & women) are heterosexual.hence why your arguement is retarded, there is a huge disperity there.hetero people think their family members are attractive too but they don't want to take it past that point because they know it's abnormal & the same thing is true about gays.what difference does it make if it's a few million or 15?Wrong is wrong period.human being are hardwired to be with the opposite sex period.
JYoung3rd 3 days ago
@JYoung3rd your not getting it, its normal for a person to be attracted to women right? or are you denying that its normal and natural for a person to be attracted to women, just because it rare for women to be attracted to other women dose not make being attracted to women abnormal or unnatural. I agree humans are hard wired to be attracted to one sex or the other and in rare cases about 8-10% of the time they are hard wired to be attracted to the same sex or both, thats not wrong.
Fireflygamer 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Fireflygamer you're not getting it, i already told you attraction is normal but crossing that boundary & commiting lewd & obscene sexual acts with someone of the same sex or someone in your family is ABNORMAL, hence why 100% of hetero women do not act pass their attraction for another woman of the same sex or family member.do you understand?
JYoung3rd 3 days ago
@JYoung3rd lol not every woman is attracted sexually to other women, im not sexually attracted to every pretty woman i see ether. I can recognize that my best friend and sister are sexy, but that dose not mean i want to fuck them. I fall in love with other women and have no interest of feelings toward men at all. The women i fall in love with i do want to make love to, but its only those women, not the women i have other relationships with, like my sister and my friends.
Fireflygamer 3 days ago
@JYoung3rd Bestiality is when you have sex with animals pedophilia is when you have sex with children. about 50% of the world is attracted to women, this is a normal thing to happen, its rare in other women but its still natural and normal for a person to be attracted to a woman. Having sex with children and animals is different because nether can consent to it and it cause emotional harm and torment to the child or animal.
Fireflygamer 3 days ago
@Fireflygamer you think i don't know that?lol yes, a innocent attraction is normal, homosexual acts are not any more normal then incestuous acts.You are the worst kind of hypocrite that a person can be.
what proof do you have that it causes emotional harm/torment to an animal?
JYoung3rd 3 days ago
@JYoung3rd What proof do i have that having unconcentual sex with a 12 year old causes harm and torment to that child. are you seriously asking me this? how about the testimony of the victims of pedophilia. as far as having sex with animals it can be seen in there behavior after they have been abused. I do not think you understand the difference between pedophilia, incest and bestiality. you might want to get an education on sexuality before you start making comments on it.
Fireflygamer 3 days ago
@Fireflygamer are you a complete fool? i didn't say pedophilia was ok.go back & read what i said.
in mexico they have donkey shows where a person (usually a woman) will preform a sex act on the donkey.there is no proof in theior behavior that these donkeys act different or are traumatized afterward.
JYoung3rd 3 days ago
@JYoung3rd you side the - .i will agree pedophilia is slightly different because it's an animal.
what did you mean by that if you were not mixing up pedophilia with bestiality. I have read the studies of animals that have been abused in this way, the often act more skittish and will often not socialize with the other animals choosing to go off alone in one side of the pen. This study was with male human on animals, it might be different with masturbating a donkey.
Fireflygamer 3 days ago
@Fireflygamer a normal woman may think her best friend or sister/mother is pretty but she doesn't want to commit lewd & obscene sexual acts with them.so therefore you arguement about attraction is purely false.
JYoung3rd 3 days ago
@JYoung3rd no most women are not sexually attracted or fall in romantic love with other women. The can recognize that other women are sexy but have no desire to make love to them. There is a difference between recognizing someone is attractive and feeling drawn to them in a sexual way. I can recognize when men are sexy, but i feel no draw or desire to be with them, that is the difference, its the feeling. are you telling me your drawn sexually & have sexual feeling for the same sex?
Fireflygamer 3 days ago
@Groudie101 What a stupid comment, there is a big difference in saying, sorry you can't marry your sister, then saying sorry you can't marry the gender you are attracted too. one is saying you can not marry a small group of close family members, there other is saying sorry you can't marry half the worlds population. its also sexist to ban gay marriage, you can marry a woman, my question to you is why can I? because I am a woman? telling me i can not do something because of my sex is sexist.
Fireflygamer 4 months ago
did you know that their are now some "scientists" (as reported in a recent USA today article) who are starting to argue that pedophilia [sexual] orientation is "natural and may have a reasonable biological basis. That is to say now that these 'scientist' are arguing that, like homosexuals, pedophiles are "born that way"
shieldsff 2 months ago
i agree with rick warren
beavermac 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It upsets me to hear the arguments trying compare gay marriage to polygamy, molesting children or to having sex with animals. Gay people are not asking for a new right, they are asking for the same right that everyone else has. Polygamy is something that is completely different because it is not legal for ANYONE. Having sex with animals and molesting children is already illegal for all. Gays are not asking for some NEW crazy right, they are asking for EQUAL treatment. There is a BIG difference!
cheers1122 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Two consenting adults should be allowed to enter into a binding legal agreement concerning their future and their lives together.
Polygamy and Inscest have documented effects on the physical and mental health of children. No study has ever shown that two men or two women raising a child together has any negative effect on a child other than the discrimination the family faces.
Hate? Too much hate, too much rage, when will both sides learn that "love is all you need."
RACHAELSGIRL 2 years ago
To the maker of this video why is incest wrong if i as a man love my brother and want to have sex with him why should it be bad. Why are you discrinaing against incest people. And why should polygamy be bad, you preach people hate but yet you hate another group how stupid is that. Is it not love between 2 consenting adults. Please practice what yo preach.
sguardian870 2 years ago
He isn't.. He is simply stating that they are not comparable.. Which they are not.
pourqu0im0i 2 years ago
Why is incest not comparable and why is polygam not comparable please give me a valid reason why is it not all about love. And is it not animal and human nature to have more than one sex partner as well. These people are all grown adults who love each other. Why should they be excluded in society.
sguardian870 2 years ago
Incest and polygamy can't be compared to homosexuality for a couple reasons, the main one being that polygamy and incest have nothing to do with sexual orientation. Also, it's very well known that gay people can not change their orientation, strong biological evidence points to people being developed as gay.. We know for a fact it's not a choice. Polygamy can exist between two gay people but that would make them gay polygamist - has nothing to do with their sexual orientation.
pourqu0im0i 2 years ago
I mean tot say gay people can be polygamists rather.. cont- but it has everything to do with their choice to be polygamist.. In nature there are many cases where animals choose one sexual partner, animal sexuality is just as complex as human sexuality. Many societies practice polygamy, our society just happens to be one that generally shuns it.. Incest is almost never accepting in society anywhere. I'm not saying that it's right or wrong, I'm just saying it's not the same as homosexuality.
pourqu0im0i 2 years ago
Comment removed
aargh5 2 years ago
Inbreeding leads to higher risk of genetic disorder.
Charles 2 of Spain is probably the best example of what inbreeding will lead to.
aargh5 2 years ago
Homosexuality is a genetic disorder by logic as the purpose of human existence, as with all other animals, is to stay alive and reproduce. Gay couples can not reproduce without the help a member of the opposite sex and therefore, if not for our technology and adoption agencies (which do not naturally exist), they would die out. Gays are born gay, and thus it is possible for them to pass the genetic defects to their children. Eventually the human race will be extinct, but what should we do?
MahDeerHunter 2 years ago
In fact pedophilia is more biologically correct than gay marriage. the only thing that makes it seem wrong to us is our age old morals that gays tell us we should abandon.lol
babertron 2 years ago
Wait why do you find incest wrong? What if two brothers love each other? Well? What if a brother was separated from another brother for a long time and when they met they had gay sexual feelings for each other? IS THAT WRONG? How about pedophilia? According to the gay belief that marriage should be between two people that love each other and not by the old structured law of marriage. Then what if the child and the older man loved each other? Who are you to define love? How is it any different?
babertron 2 years ago
"Express your rage" How fucking gay!
floydfn 2 years ago
INCEST AND PEDOPHELIA IS JUST PLAIN SICK AND WRONG AND FUCKING ABUSE TO ANOTHER HUMAN
but gay marrige is fine hey if there in love its there buisness really i support that and hey some people can handle a million wives like mormans(racist biggots) but hey i dont see anything wrong with polygomy well it takes the point out of marrige but okay thats the persons choice not the goverments
DeadEndJustice13 2 years ago
Nature apparently made a mistake when it made people homosexuals. Matching accessories that don't work the way complementary accessories do. I guess Mother Nature makes mistakes. At least homosexuals can make the choice to joing the heterosexual gene pool and enjoy normalcy.
carnaco2 2 years ago
thats really dumb they have the right to exist as human beings and why do you care about shit that doesnt effect your life i mean seriously the reason i think gays are lucky is cause they cant get pregnat all the time like straight people like myself but hey thats life get used to it
DeadEndJustice13 2 years ago
Its all wrong and sick, gay marriage is wrong.
bivstvovanje 2 years ago
Rick Warren is an ass just leave him alone
Saxofony89 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hey Gay Boy in video...you dont make me uncomfortable...
you make me sick!
lensman8 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Pedophilia is a sexual perversion.
Same-sex unity is a sexual perversion (not orientation).
Therefore, Pedophiles = Homosexuals.
It's a very simple equation.
henrywattson 3 years ago
Why to oppose it? He is only messenger. Someone has to say the truth.
oxat 3 years ago
To answer your title question: No, Warren's comparisons of gay marriage to other taboo relationships did not get him invited to invoke Obama's inauguration. However, I recommend you spend some time researching more probable reasons for his involvement...
shanesmith8 3 years ago
SUPPORT RICK WARREN!!! lol hahah.. i think youre gay! ll
5fingersolo 3 years ago
soooo, what if you're not christian? when straight people get married in civil ceremonies, they still get all the privileges of "marriage."
bluegrrl70 3 years ago 4
Krypt--Thanks for the comments. We all can tend to get caught up in an issue from our POV that fingers fly faster on the keyboard than does the checking mechanism that usually discards things best left unsaid.
We all obviously expect to hold onto our own convictions, while at the same time hoping they shed light for others as to where we coming from and why it is we feel as we do on certain issues.
carnaco2 3 years ago
His comments regarding a man cleaving to his wife, along with Paul's referring to sins one can be washed clean from by the blood of Jesus, give, for a vast number of Christians, the indication that that relationship is to be between two people of the opposite sex, and that one can walk away from sins, although with great difficulty at times.
carnaco2 3 years ago
And I guess I'd have to refer back to scripture, not to make a case for laws against homosexual marriage.
The picture of marriage that we're given in the Bible is akin to that of the spiritual union Christ has with His church.
Just as Christ doesn't go off and pair up with the Buddhist faith or the Shinto faith (He stays faithful to one spouse, the Church--not RomCath), His ideal for us is to remain faithful to one spouse for a lifetime. Granted, divorce often comes in.
carnaco2 3 years ago
I think the 'pleasure' argument is a distraction from what being gay really is... Its not about sex or shooting a load! Sexually, I am BiSexual. I have had sex with women. Im turned on by women. I can not fall in love with a woman. I never got 'butterflies in my stomach' from a woman. A woman never inspired me to more selfless, or to put anothers well-being before my own. You have to understand, if I lost my penis right now, never could have sex again... Id still be gay.
KryptKraken 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Why is that? I dont get Bisexuals. Why do they want it both ways? to get fucked and to fuck. Maybe its an obsession with fucking. Why dont you just get a fat guy with bitch tits that likes it up the ass. Thats way, you got tits, you can get fucked by him, and you can fuck him.
HecklerBoy7 3 years ago
. . .assuming one accepts the Word as speaking out against homosexuality and something that someone can be justified from, as Paul states in Corinthians.
carnaco2 3 years ago
But damn carnaco2, u just cant keep away from quoting the bible to promote a secular position! lol While I respect your personal reverence of the script, its just irrelevent in determining public policy
KryptKraken 3 years ago
One could also say that if homosexuality is a choice and viewed as a sin by the Bible (I realize we disagree, but. . .), that the attraction of the pleasure that comes from homosexual sex is a powerful force to resist. Just as--and I'm not equating the two here, just another example--the pleasure that pedophiles get from their acts, certainly a sin, is too great for them to want to cease and desist. Better to give in to the pleasure than to be obedient to the Word. . .
carnaco2 3 years ago
Well, I think that just because you dont know what its like to be gay. Honestly. But in your defence, I'll say this; If I wasnt gay, Id prob be just as ignorant about it as you. Thats not an insult. I just mean ignorant as far as lack of knowledge. If I wasnt gay, Id be the 1st to critisize it, Im sure.... Funny how God works. In the end, I feel that not only would my life be empty if I denied who I love, but it would b living a lie to those who love me most. My family...
KryptKraken 3 years ago
Carnaco, I wrote a couple replies, but today is a busy day so I wont be around. I just wanted to say Iv recognized a change in your tone in debating this with me. I know your position hasnt changed, but u seem to be more respectful and I appreciate it.
KryptKraken 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Repent and turn from your wicked ways before it's too late!
victorlamont05 3 years ago
But I think John Stewart really summed up this debate best with Mike Huckabee, when after Huckabee stated that being gay is a choice, Stewart replied, "so when did u decide to be straight?".
U can choose not to have gay sex, but that doesnt mean u are choosing not to be gay, it means u are in the closet. And that has disastrous effects on society. Ive known ppl who couldnt handle hiding anymore. After getting married & having kids, they had to admit they never really loved mommy. Its just sad.
KryptKraken 3 years ago
DOMA is one example of a religious belief that has been codified into law. Another would be the ban on partial birth abortion. There's no way to say that any of our laws didn't have as their genesis something to do with religion.
The same could just as easily be done with homosexual marriage, with a bill passed into law banning it at the federal level, then ok'd by the SCOTUS. That would validate what over 30 states have already written into their constitutions.
carnaco2 3 years ago
Again, just because a law happens to reflect a religious belief doesnt mean it was passed by religious justification. You simply need to show more that religious conviction to pass secular laws. Otherwise that could be said about anything.
You can say that outlawing theft was an example of religious belief, but, it isnt, its because we cant have a functioning society where theft is legal. U cant say the same about gay marriage.
U can try, but there is no proof or reasonable argument against it.
KryptKraken 3 years ago
need to show more *than* religious conviction....
KryptKraken 3 years ago
Religion is, indeed, a choice, but protection for religion is written into the Constitution within the 1st amendment. There's no such guarantee in the Constitution for homosexual marriage, polygamy, incest, etc.
carnaco2 3 years ago
Thats true and freedom of religion is a cornerstone of our society. But, if someone is discriminated against because of their religious beliefs, lets say in the work place by refusing employment, it is a violation of their civil rights.
The point here is that civil rights do not ONLY apply to biologically identified characteristics. Thats just a fact, its not disputable.
KryptKraken 3 years ago
When I said thats true, I meant to the degree that religion is protected under our Constitution. There are many ppl who are more eductated on Constitutional Law than you or I who say that the Constitution DOES guarantee equal marriage for gays but that was changed with DOMA.
So saying, "There's no such guarantee in the Constitution for gay marriage" is controversial at best, but its definately not a fact...
KryptKraken 3 years ago
I understand your point. You'd then have arguments raised about the nature of "family", whether homosexuals can/should be parents, much of it coming from personal feelings unrelated to the Bible.
And there's a large segment of society that sees homosexuality as a choice (argument for another time). If so, civil rights/equality shouldn't be brought in. If it's biological, like with mixed marriages, that's something else. But many non-believing people will go with nurture not nature.
carnaco2 3 years ago
Well the family argument is a big one. Many ppl feel that allowing gay marriage is detrimental to the family structure we have now. As you might imagine, I disagree.
While the issue of homosexuality being a choice is intresting, the truth is neither side knows for sure. I can tell u my being gay isnt a choice, but I cant prove it. N vice versa. But, it doesnt really matter. Civil rights are afforded for choice based groups also. Look at religious discrimination. Religion is a choice.
KryptKraken 3 years ago
The beliefs of all of us come into play and what's in those beliefs goes into much of our legislation. Some of those beliefs may be based on scripture, but it doesn't necessarily mean a government endorsement of religion. Those of us with differing beliefs have the freedom to push for laws reflecting those beliefs. It will remain a struggle for both parties to any issue. Some people will change their views, others will continue as they always have. But both will work for what they believe in.
carnaco2 3 years ago
I agree, our beliefs motivate us, especially in a democracy. What I am saying is this; In this country, you cant say "homosexuality is forbidden in the bible, so therefor, it should be forbidden in our laws". That is a theocracy. You would have to give a REASON why homosexuality should be forbidden. The same is true about gay marriage. You cant just make it illegal because the bible says so... with anything.
KryptKraken 3 years ago
I think all of this is acceptable talk in churchs, or religious forums, (but sad and damaging nonthe less), but it has no place is determining our laws.
KryptKraken 3 years ago
are in other cultures.
If homosexuality is a sin, it isn't something to be labeled a "civil right", at least not on the part of a Christian. I don't, and will never support homosexual "marriage". That's basically it. People can call people with my views a bigot or intolerant or whatever they want. I feel God loves them to much to let them continue in what He sees as sin, nor does he want me to enable them to do that, either.
carnaco2 3 years ago
I can't be in the position of condoning ungodly legislation. Some may feel that way about war. I feel the Bible sanctions war in certain cases.
For me, if Paul says homosexuality is something a sinner was washed clean of, I can't then go and support legislation that only sanctions the performance of those very acts God wants all people to walk away from. No, we can't legislate salvation. But biblical concepts have been legislated. Yes, some of them are ethical and some, but not all. . .
carnaco2 3 years ago
Well carnaco, I think you're in for a difficult ride then here in America. This system is not set up to just pass 'Godly legislation". We all have to live together, Christian and Atheist, Jew and Taoist, ect. What u are proposing is a theocracy. The thing is ,btw, I think Christianity will flourish MORE under the system we have now, through choice, than yours, which is Force. If u want to vote according to your scriptural interpretation, than do it. Just dont expect every1 else to...
KryptKraken 3 years ago
I was curious if a change on your part after 911 was due to a changed interpretation of the Word. You seem to be saying you still feel war or retaliation wasn't justifiable scripturally, yet wanted to see something done, then asked forgiveness for that.
I'll basically say that, as a Christian, I can't support any laws that would condone what I see the Word prohibiting, be it murder, incest, homosexual marriage, etc. You may feel some of these are ethical issues and no-brainers, but. . .
carnaco2 3 years ago
You know what carnaco? I can understand that. Honestly. I also dont think u should be forced to change your mind on feeling that I am immoral because Im gay (No law could do that anyway). I just dont think the law should treat me that way. I know that u think GM is wrong because of your religious conviction, I dont think Its right or legal for the law to deny me that 'right' or whatever u want to call it, because of yours or others religious beliefs. My religious beliefs count here too...
KryptKraken 3 years ago
Krypt: Society has drawn a line at many rights in the past, and society has been wrong before as they are now.
Society being wrong now would be in your humble opinion. Courts didn't protect the "rights" of polygamists, a minority. And it's to be hoped that California's court upholds Prop 8. Sadly, there's probably nothing they can do about the "marriages" that took place before the ban, but they at least can put an end to any future attempts to create new "rights".
carnaco2 3 years ago
Carnaco2, All I can do is keep repeating myself over n over. Do u like that? Is this intresting u? Its not fair to make gay ppl justify their marriages by every other group that may or may not want theirs justified also. That in itself is discrimination.
KryptKraken 3 years ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you once said you were/are against murder or war, until the loss of close friend/s in 9/11.
If so, what changed your outlook? If murder, or war, was something to be opposed prior to 9/11, why did it suddenly become the thing to support. Was it circumstances, or was it something that could be verified as valid from the Word?
carnaco2 3 years ago
There was nothing in the bible that justified my change. I know you and I have differing views on the 'Word'
Also to clarify, none of my family/friends died there that day. Close though
I just had to be honest with myself. I was not prepared to sit back and let my family and nieghborhood be attacked. Even though I knew lifting the sword wasnt the Godly thing to do. I found no justification, heart or bible, for it, but prayed God forgive me instead. I feel that is the only way 2 approach war.
KryptKraken 3 years ago
Btw, I was there myself. A couple blocks away, but if u know dwntwn, thats not much considering what was going on...
KryptKraken 3 years ago
Why are u asking me about 911?
KryptKraken 3 years ago
As I said, society draws lines. And homosexual "marriage" isn't a right it currently wishes to endorse.
If this group had any sense about them, they'd pull the lawyers together and research contract law that would give them everything they currently want, without the badge of marriage. That would include visitation rights, etc. I doubt state and federal tax agencies would look to kindly on tax breaks for them, but they have no need to "marry" to get the goodies they're demanding.
carnaco2 3 years ago
And as I said, there is no rational argument that they be barred from marrying each other with entitlements to those same rights...
Society has drawn a line at many rights in the past, and society has been wrong before as they are now. Thats why civil rights are not voted on by a simple majority. Its really very easy to see...
KryptKraken 3 years ago
If the ppl who are trying to "protect the sanctity of marriage" had any REAL sense about THEM, they would be trying to make divorce illegal sinse cleary that is the greater threat to marriage. But their not cause its too hard and its easier to pick on weaker minorities.
Thats 1 reason why courts are in place, to protect minorities from the rule of the mob...
KryptKraken 3 years ago
Works perfectly for interracial marriages. Take the name Richard out, though, and put in multiple names and see if it goes as "loving" were a polygamist to say the same thing.
carnaco2 3 years ago
Carnaco2, you're constantly changing the topic of gay marriage to other topics because there really is no rational argument against gay marriage. Your entire argument against gay marriage revolves around your personal religious views and other unrelated topics such as incest. Gay marriage deserves to be reviewed on its own merits. You cant seem to do that...
KryptKraken 3 years ago
For example, you say "Take the name Richard out, though, and put in multiple names "...but Mildred Loving didnt...lol
Mildred loving said " I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry."
U may wish she didnt include gay ppl, but the fact remains, she did...
KryptKraken 3 years ago
Perfectly said Mildred...
KryptKraken 3 years ago
Mildred Loving:
"Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry." (continued)
KryptKraken 3 years ago
(c0ntinued)
"Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.
I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about."
KryptKraken 3 years ago
Comment on the slippery slope argument. You allow homosexuals today, who's next to say "we're not asking special rights, just 'equal rights'".
Society has rightly condemned homosexuality through the years. Where does a society draw the line and finally say "ENOUGH".
You can argue about legislating biblical morality, but Christians should in no way be pushing for laws that go against what the Word says. At the very least, they should either fight them or remain silent.
carnaco2 3 years ago
You just admitted that gay ppl, as a minority have been discriminated against by society for a long time. Thanx, I already knew that.
We can not disallow rights with the example of precedent. There has been a concerted effort to stifle the entire gay community that predates the movement to liberate it. The success of oppression should not be the argument for further oppression, but the proof required to revolt against it. Since the exaltation of liberty is democracies goal and manifest...
KryptKraken 3 years ago
But marriage IS a civil right in itself. According to the 1967 ruling in Loving v Virginia "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man"
Whats really intresting is Mildred Lovings statement regaurding her court cases impact on gay marriage. Mildred Loving spent time in jail for violating the anti interacial marriage laws...
KryptKraken 3 years ago
The argument that marriage isn't a right but a 'special consideration', so gay ppl should shut up n be glad with the rights they have, is the most nonsensicle one of all. If you weren't allowed to get a state drivers license because you were mormon or presbyterian, would that be discrimination? Of course it would. Maybe being allowed to drive isn't a right, but being denied that license from the state because of your religion would be a violation of your civil rights.
KryptKraken 3 years ago
Re: judicial review. Obviously, Jerry Brown has gone against his oath of office in saying he won't support Prop 8 in court. But I have no doubt there'll be someone recognized as having standing to argue the case for it. And it could very well end up in the SCOTUS. Then, you've got the issue of a possible constitutional amendment.
carnaco2 3 years ago
carnaco2, are u white?
KryptKraken 3 years ago
They have the same right to get married as anyone else. All they have to do is find a member of the opposite sex and they comply with the law. At least 30 states now say that's the way it is, and more are being added to the list.
carnaco2 3 years ago
You mean like Connecticut?
I dont think the Californis Supreme Court will view things the same way you do. The ban on Gay marriage was illegal, in more than one way. Its inevitable, gay ppl will be allowed to marry. Its just a matter of time.
KryptKraken 3 years ago
Well, you'll still have to explain why homosexuals should get special treatment ahead of polygamists & consenting incestuous adults.
Then, if you want true separation of church and state, work for the removal of "In God We Trust" (gee, how did THAT get to be our national motto?), relgious symbols from the Supreme Court bldg, not to mention prayers opening Congress, "so help me God" at the end of oaths. You've got work ahead of you. & homosexuals will have to wait for other groups in line.
carnaco2 3 years ago
Why? Why do gay ppl have to justify every group that may or may not also want equal rights under the law if they are given them??? Its unfair. The same argument can be put forth for allowing black ppl civil rights, or women. Gay ppl deserve equal rights, period...
KryptKraken 3 years ago
I think u have in backwards carnaco2, these other groups will have to wait in line. Gay rights already have its appointed day in court this March. When millions of incestous relationships throng to the steps of City Hall demanding their case be reviewed, then they will be. But thats not where things are at.
So u can say your statement applies very well to your arguement. Gay marriage is up for judicial review. All these other cases will have to wait there turn.... once they exsist that is, lol
KryptKraken 3 years ago
A Historical perspective on 'Normal':
Pedophilia, crucifixion, slavery, throwing new borns off cliffs, persecution of christians, incest, polygamy, worshipping the sun, racism, stoning, child labor, Drilling holes in the head of headache victims, pulling beating hearts out of virgins to appease god, the belief that the world is traveling on the back of a turtle, burning scientists at the stake, prison terms for interracial marriage, Fucking underwater to aviod pregnancy & suicide parties.
KryptKraken 3 years ago
I have an Idea. How about we invent a country where we seperate church and state?
The government won't be allowed to tell ppl how and what to worship, so long as nobody gets hurt (obviously). In turn, the church and religious interpretation will not be allowed to shape secular law. Instead the law will be based on the premise that all men are created equal and the protection of individual liberty. Churchs will even be exempt from paying taxes, unless they breach that seperation...
KryptKraken 3 years ago
Polygamists would say "We love each other and we all consent to it", the same thing we're hearing from homosexuals. Why deprive 10 women from sharing the love of 1 man? Why deprive 2 men from sharing their love together, however unnatural it may be? Same concept. Polygamists have no "civil rights" to multiple partners. Homosexuals have NO "civil rights" to same-sex unions.
carnaco2 3 years ago
"Thou shalt not kill"(murder). A religious belief that the US recognizes as law. Many societies believe it too. If only we did, it would still be law.
"Cleave unto your wife", 1 man, 1 woman. We're well within our rights of legislating yet another Biblical command.
"Such were some of you". Paul's liberating statement that one doesn't have to live in the sin of their past life, homosexuality included. Not a law but, like murder and polygamy, a biblical concept that CAN be legislated.
carnaco2 3 years ago
Not allowing murder is not a religious belief. Its an Ethical, no-brainer...
KryptKraken 3 years ago
Romans 13:8-10
Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet, and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
My problem isnt w/ Paul, just those who pervert his message...
KryptKraken 3 years ago
Agreed. It's done every day in churches that seem to be "seeker-friendly" to homosexuals. When I Cor 6:11 says "such were some of you" to a list of sins, including homosexuality, they'll insist it means this, or that, just NOT homosexuality or homosexual relations, since that means it's a sin and can be walked away from.
The same with the Romans reference to government being given the power of the sword. Swords can be used to kill people under the authority of the state.
carnaco2 3 years ago
Carnaco2, U seem to be unable to stop commenting me.
Your points are obviously of your own opinion and in America, we're allowed to have our own religious beliefs and practise, so Im not arguing yours. You can believe what u want But, not everyone in America believes in God, or is Christian, and they have the right to not have their laws shaped by our conflicting religious interpretation.
This just isn't about religion...
KryptKraken 3 years ago
Krypt: "You just used Paul to justify murder... There is no Just killing. "
My uncle, who was shot down over France in defense of his country, and a good part of Europe, would be shaking his head in sorrow at hearing that.
carnaco2 3 years ago
And I was a pacifist untill a bunch of religious fanatics who want the world under a theocratic tyranny knocked down the WTC with my family and friends in it. I knew that war and murder was wrong. I still do, I cant deny what Christ said about it no matter how inconvenient it is...
But, I will sin if need be, cause they need to be stopped. I just dont pervert the bible to justify my sin like you do. I will kill to protect my family n country cause Im American/human.I dont pretend its Christian.
KryptKraken 3 years ago
No need to pretend. If you can't deny what Christ said about it, why is it not Christian? If Paul says the government has been given the power of the sword, it would be going against the Word to say war is murder. Yes, people do get killed, and yes, there are wars that are totally unnecessary. I lost many classmates in Vietnam, but there's no way I can say war goes against the Word of God. He doesn't want violence, but the Bible clearly gives the government the power of the sword.
carnaco2 3 years ago
If Paul says murder is OK, than Paul is going against Christ. So u choose, I already did. You're just lying to yourself if u think murder is OK in Jesus' eyes. But u were lying to yourself yesterday when u said Warrens statement that marriage has only been 1man1woman for 5,000yrs was a matter of interpretation. You lie to me, you lie to yourself, Im not shocked that you lie to God and every1 else on here in his name.
Jesus doesnt need u preaching murder for him.
KryptKraken 3 years ago
You so easily skim past Paul's statement in Romans since it seems to authorize the killing of anyone. You rationalize the passage in Mark on one wife and say nothing about the passage in Genesis from which it comes. Not a word as to Paul's statement about people being washed and justified from a list of sins, homosexuality among them. It's as if the Pauline epistles have been ripped out of the Bible. Paul contradicting Christ on murder? Fat chance. The Word contains NO contradictions.
carnaco2 3 years ago
"should the laws of the land in the U.S. reflect the bibles position on those who don't believe Jesus was the son of God?
Should it be against the law to not believe that Jesus was Christ? Obviously, there is no greater sin. "
You're apparenly not reading my posts. I'll repeat for your benefit that the Bible tells us that the act of salvation is a work of the Holy Spirit. As such, it can't be legislated. If you feel it's a greater sin not to do that push for your theocracy.
carnaco2 3 years ago
Oh trust me, I read your posts. Im just proving what a hypocrite you are...
Its more important to a legislate against a less important sin than to legislate against the most deadly sin like denying Christ?
You go ahead and use the bible to conceal your cowardice, but its obvious the only REAL reason u cant make non belief in Christ against the law is because too many ppl dont believe in Christ or would EVER let that law be passed.
So instead u spend your day kicking around gays, its easy...
KryptKraken 3 years ago
Answer me this on your fallacious question about legislating salvation. Do YOU believe salvation is an act of the Holy Spirit? Why would you think any Christian would push legislation requiring something only the Holy Spirit can do? We pass laws against things we agree are wrong or immoral like murder, incest or homosexual acts. Are you making an effort to grieve the Holy Spirit by demanding someone legislate what only He can do, just to lend credence to your support of same-sex relations?
carnaco2 3 years ago
Look, your pushing this on me, but its not my position, its yours. I dont claim the Holy Spirit needs legislative assistance, u do. We dont outlaw murder cause its in the bible, we outlaw it cause its wrong.
If u think the love I have for my bf is immoral or because I dont pray enough, your wrong. Hes the very answer of my prayers to God, n keeps me CLOSER to him. Its not about sex anymore than ur straight relations are. Prob even less so. U couldnt last with what we've been through. dont judge
KryptKraken 3 years ago
On what basis do you say murder is wrong? Moral positions developed from sources outside the Bible? The Bible tells us our conscience speaks to us about things that our wrong. Many come to their conclusions on murder or homosexuality based on the fact their own conscience screams to them that it's inherently wrong or sinful.
carnaco2 3 years ago
If u need me to explain why murder is wrong, you'll never get it.
If u need me to explain what love is, you'll never understand it.
If u need the bible to tell u who Jesus is, you'll never know him, till he reveals himself to u like he did to me.
Im done with u Carnaco2. I even feel bad for u, but I feel worse for the ppl who suffer from your ignorance and bigotry. If I have to explain these things, I have nothing more to say.
KryptKraken 3 years ago
Give Paul the credence he deserves as a writer of Scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit. Don't reject his clear commands because they seem to go against your own prejudices or seem to label certain people as sinners.
Don't pick and choose the scriptures that are comfortable.
And a similar thing could be said about those you encourage to continue in the sin of homosexuality, when Scripture clearly cries out against it.
carnaco2 3 years ago
Paul also talks about homosexuality as a sin that people have walked away from and been washed and justified in the blood of Jesus from. Since you give the impression that the red letter words are the more important ones, your cutesy about two men loving each other wouldn't pass the smell test with the Apostle Paul. Since he spent a considerable time with Jesus in the wilderness, I'd rather go with his words than yours.
carnaco2 3 years ago
In essence, you're trying to legislate your own Biblical morality on others, something you condemn in those who oppose homosexuality. Cloaking it as an "equal rights" issue doesn't cut it if you still believe the Bible speaks out for it. We all have the right to push what we feel is morally correct. I feel homosexuality is morally incorrect and a sin and will fight against laws for homosexual "marriage". You can do the same the other way.
carnaco2 3 years ago
Carnaco2, you are a hypocrite in every sense. I do not/did not use the bible to prevent other ppl from following their belief in God. You have used the bible to justify taking away MY right to follow God according to MY belief. There is NO biblical justification for you to do that, no matter how you twist the bible to further your discrimination.
No matter who u bend it, we are not doing the same thing. No one told u to marry another man. U told me I couldnt.
KryptKraken 3 years ago
carnaco2,
should the laws of the land in the U.S. reflect the bibles position on those who don't believe Jesus was the son of God?
Should it be against the law to not believe that Jesus was Christ? Obviously, there is no greater sin.
KryptKraken 3 years ago
Legislation mandating belief in one particular God is nowhere mandated in the Bible. There's nothing there, however, about legislating Godly morality.
If you choose to rail against the clear command to "cleave unto his wife", there's no way you could condone any Christian following the verse from trying to push legislation in support of 1 man 1 woman marriage.
And if you've got a thing against killing, Paul talks about the state being given authority to use arms for our defense.
carnaco2 3 years ago
Clearly, the bible says that rejecting Jesus as the son of God is a much greater sin than not 'cleaving unto a wife'.
So should the Law in the United States inforce the belief that Jesus was Christ, and make it illegal to deny Jesus as Christ??
KryptKraken 3 years ago
To God, sin is sin. And the Bible also clearly states that the act of salvation is done through the convicting work of the Holy Spirit, not through legislation. That's a non-issue. If you want to grade sins and then legislate, push all you want for a theocracy.
carnaco2 3 years ago
You're the theocracy advocate here. And you also just used Paul and the bible to justify murder. We both know you aren't even a Christian at this point. Jesus clearly says that any1 who trys to save his life will lose his life and that no murderer has a place in heaven. You dont follow Christ, u pretend to follow Paul, and even he would reject your doctrine...
KryptKraken 3 years ago
Using Paul to justify murder? That's a reach. Romans 13:4 says the government has the power of the sword. Doesn't condemn that fact. This verse has been used to justify the waging of war on the part of governments (murder in your eyes, apparently).
carnaco2 3 years ago
Carnaco2, u are full of shit...lol
carnaco2 said: 'And if you've got a thing against killing, Paul talks about the state being given authority to use arms for our defense.'
You just used Paul to justify murder... There is no Just killing.
KryptKraken 3 years ago
As Col. Potter would have said on M*A*S*H, "you've got a burr under your saddle". And it looks like it's the Apostle Paul. Speak to Romans 13:4 and complain to Paul if you want to kvetch about war being murder when the state has been given the authority by Paul to use arms.
carnaco2 3 years ago
carnaco2,
should the laws of the land in the U.S. reflect the bibles position on those who don't believe Jesus was the son of God?
Should it be against the law to not believe that Jesus was Christ? Obviously, there is no greater sin.
KryptKraken 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
carnaco2,
should the laws of the land in the U.S. reflect the bibles position on those who don't believe Jesus was the son of God?
Should it be against the law to not believe that Jesus was Christ? Obviously, there is no greater sin.
KryptKraken 3 years ago
Carnaco, you are guilty of te sin of homosexuality by your own statement...
James 2:10 "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all."
KryptKraken 3 years ago