BavarianWheels wrote:I guess you're saying it will destroy society. Homosexual unions already exist...and guess what? We're still here. Amazing! By your assumption, changing the name of the union to "marriage" will destroy society? Might you have some proof of this claim?
Of course it will… How do you expect homosexuals to produce children? Society will die if everyone turned homosexual. Marriage strengthens PROCREATION unless the two are homosexual. And given the high disease rate disease rate among homosexuals, on Aug. 8, 2008, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control reported that 53% of new HIV infections in 2006 occurred in gay or bisexual men. More infections occurred among young people under 30 (aged 13—29) than any other age group (34%, or 19,200). African Americans, while comprising 13% of the US population, accounted for 45% of the new HIV infections in 2006. This does not strengthen society at all....
http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2008/06/ ... 214840649/
BavarianWheels wrote:What about the kids in public schools? Don't they have parents? What about orphans? I suppose they'll have to pick up a book and do some reading...but wait, further down you actually claim 75% of society is Christian...and sanctioned marriage is being "protected" from...?? (btw...I don't argue the % claim...)
No… You don't understand… Many kids are being left in the dark on this, and their parents don't always know better either... Ok, then what about the % that are being left out?? And what about other Christians that believe that homosexuality is ok?
BavarianWheels wrote:I said it couldn't? You seem to have missed the little part about having ALWAYS abstained from sex. Homosexual diseases cannot exist in a relationship where neither partner has had sex at all...homo OR hetero. By pointing out the fact that the body was not made for sodomy...are you implying I'm saying it s? If so, once again I'll have to say you haven't heard nor understood my words.
Anal sex can PRODUCE ANAL CANCER!!! It does NOT matter if you abstained from sex previously or not. And who knows what other diseases this practice will produce either. Blood and feces do NOT mix!!!
BavarianWheels wrote:Me...promoting homosexuality? Not at all! I stand on your side. Homosexuality is a sinful act. What I'm "promoting" here is that "marriage" of homosexuals does absolutely nothing in "saving" marriage nor helps society in the erradication of diseases attributed to homosexual contact. Laws and/or Props such as Prop 8, simply provide a reason for Christians to pat themselves on the back and say, "We've saved marriage and have kept those homos from marrying..." Other than that...it does nothing for society.
Baloney with a capital “B”… AGAIN… You have already claimed that homosexuality is BAD or a sin for society… HOWEVER, you would vote for or ENDORSE same sex marriage!!! In other words you know that it is bad, but you would still allow society to do it… For centuries, marriage as a legal institution between a man and a woman has protected children and society in every country and culture. You now seek to destroy that foundation…
BavarianWheels wrote:Still putting words in my mouth. I guess you have license to do that. Show me where I've said we should protect homosexuality. And since you're allowed to demand certain things, I'll demand it also. Prove with my words that I've stated anywhere that I want homosexuality (or even same-sex marriage) protected! You wont find it...what you will find is me saying it's silly for society to "protect marriage" from same-sex couples when society hasn't made homosexuality illegal!
AGAIN… WHY DO YOU THINK PROP 8 WAS INITIATED? On May 15, 2008, four judges overturned the will of voters and said same-sex marriage was a "right." Prop. 8 is a ballot measure that will place into the California Constitution language that says "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California." YOU ARE AGAINST PROP 8…
You CLEARLY stated “My vote is NO on 8!”.. WHICH MEANS YOU ARE FOR SAME SEX MARRIAGE!!! You can't go back now…
BavarianWheels wrote:Your analogy of homosexuality and/or same-sex marriage being a speeding car hitting an unsuspecting person JUST DOESN'T FIT!! The person being hit IS A VICTIM! Where is the "victim" in homosexuality or same-sex marriage??! Are you now saying I'm ignorant to the consequences of homosexuality and how it can and does affect society? If society, in your scenario, is the person being hit by the car, then it makes it all the more silly since it is society that can make or break laws in this country! If it is the homosexual that is the person being hit by the car, it fails to make your point since the homosexual is a willing participant and thus not a victim.
Yeah, the person being hit is the victim, and it seems that you would rather see them get hurt. You stated that homosexuality is bad or a sin… Is sin good for anyone?? You would rather see someone die in their sins? I don't know, these are your words not mine…
BavarianWheels wrote:Society has only condemned homosexuality by giving it lip-service. It has not banded together as of yet to make the practice of homosexuality illegal. Society, if it doesn't want to address this, cannot (should not) legislate laws all around the issue while not addressing THE ISSUE. It's kind of like making a law banning shot glasses because you (society) think drinking alcohol is bad for society.
Again, what do you think the sodomy laws were? And what about propositions like prop 8… Do you think Prop 8 promotes homosexual behavior and give them rights?
BavarianWheels wrote:Our (society's) agreement with the practice is already given since we have not made homosexuality illegal. It already IS mainstream. I agree, if homosexuals are drawing that parallel, I agree...it's also silly.
No.. homosexuality is NOT mainstream. Less than 2% are even homosexual... And only a small percentage of people (rich lawyers) repealed the sodomy laws just recently… And 13 states still have them on the books. Prop 8 did past.
BavarianWheels wrote:Let's just say then hypothetically that everyone is pro homosexual. Then that means that you are totally influenced by mainstream ideas.. You would vote the way they vote. And let's say society at large decided it was illegal to practice any form of religion in America as it was in Russia… After all it's a separation between church and state.. You would vote for that too?
It should. The division exists...however it's becoming more blurred as time goes by.
Yah, I wonder why..
BavarianWheels wrote:Oh so now a vote 'no' on Prop 8 is a vote against God? God's laws ARE best for society...when the society votes itself into a Theocracy or is forced into one.
God's moral laws transcend to throughout society. You CANNOT separate them.. Why do you think everyone wants to live in the U.S.? There are many who would love to live here..
BavarianWheels wrote:In these United States, it is against the law to discriminate against homosexuals. Plain. What if there is such religions that promote homosexuality? There is nothing illegal about it. There is no law in this land that makes such a practice illegal. This secular fact doesn't make God's stance on the matter any less.
No….. The point was that you were claiming is that marriage between the opposite sex is based on theocratic laws. But if a homosexual believes that God sanctions homosexuality then that is based on theocracy as well.. Again there is no separation between the two..
BavarianWheels wrote:It's pretty amazing such things could happen in a country that is...what's your percentages of Christians in this country? Oh...further down. You say we Christians are about 75% of the country...and yet homosexuality is still tolerated? And you want same-sex marriage made illegal because it's damaging to society...hmm. Let's not play in make-believe bubbles. (That being that society abhors homosexuality...it doesn't otherwise there would be a law against being a homosexual or practicing homosexuality.)
Again… Homosexuality is not accepted in mainstream America. Again look at the recent sodomy laws.. The very liberal state of California did vote for Prop 8. How do you think Prop 8 would do in a state like Texas or one of the other red states? It would win by a landside…
BavarianWheels wrote:First of all, It's not ok to have two moms or two dads? Would be really confusing to kids with divorced and remarried parents now wouldn't it. I'm being critical of course of your words, the point is that there is not secular proof that a child cannot grow normal having two dads or two moms raise him/her. In fact there is no proof that homosexual unions produce homosexual kids...the exact opposite in fact is true, that being ONLY HETEROSEXUAL SEXUAL ENCOUNTERS HAVE PRODUCED HOMOSEXUAL CHILDREN!
Baloney!!! You wish to alienate a child from their biological mother or father?? Would you want that for yourself?? Every child being raised by gay or lesbian couples will be denied his birthright to both biological parents who made him. Every single one.. Marriage is society's most pro-child institution.. Where are the Children's rights???
This author seems to get it..
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/com ... 7126.story
BavarianWheels wrote:Second...the "What Would Jesus Do" thing you promote as our incentive to change society...?? Please name one thing Jesus came and changed in secular society through secular law and more so something that wasn't already in His law...God's law!
AGAIN, you have already agreed with me that America was built on BIBLICAL principles. What was done has already been built. The question is what more will be un-done to muddy the waters even more.
BavarianWheels wrote:Traditional marriage...of which society (75% of which is Christian) is doing an exellent job at "protecting" the integrity thereof.
Interesting, to say the least.
Yah, you too… Excellent job..
BavarianWheels wrote:Ok...like I've said. We agree. I'm not sure what your point is if we agree.
Because we don't agree… You only think the way you think your society thinks…
BavarianWheels wrote:You're asking me or telling me? If we can't separate religious from secular...what are we doing with that idiotic 1st Amendment? I guess our forefathers were stupid it thinking it could be done...it sounds like you're saying the forefathers of this country were stupid in this.
It's all about the way you interpret it…
BavarianWheels wrote:As you can see it is getting worse as the older generations die off…. And homosexual rights get stronger and break apart the families..
More of inserting your assumptions in my mouth/words. I NEVER made such a claim. I simply stated, as Wiki does, that T. Jefferson made this conclusion based on the 1st Amendment wording. I NEVER said church/state separation began at that time...church/state separation began long before that! At least by Jesus' words. See Matthew 22:21.
What do you mean you never made such a claim?? You stated, “it is Thomas Jefferson that first made the conclusion that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment put a “wall of separation between Church and State”. You even used Jefferson to back up your claim!!! The separation already happened, stop denying it..
BavarianWheels wrote:The point is, a piece of paper that says two individuals are "married" is not the cause of diseases.
Baloney.. It will make it a more acceptable practice, endorsed by the taxpayers..
BavarianWheels wrote:What about procreation? Homosexuals cannot procreate in same-sex marriages or at all unless a homosexual male and a homosexual female engage in natural sex.
Again, homosexuality is not new to our era...
Yeah, what are the chances a homosexual male and a homosexual female engage in natural sex? Again.. Every child being raised by gay or lesbian couples will be denied their birthright to both biological parents who made him.
BavarianWheels wrote:The marriage paper does NOT do this...the 1st Amendment does this ALREADY!!
Incorrect… You mean the skewing of the 1st Amendment and the marriage paper..
BavarianWheels wrote:What?? Harry is saying he would like to be in a committed relationship with another man APART from the homosexual sex. THAT IS CALLED A SAME-SEX MARRIAGE. It's two people committed to each other. It makes no difference if they are sexually involved or not.
Yeah, he also said he was a homosexual…
BavarianWheels wrote:Saw...and all I see is that homosexuality, sodomy (within limits) is legal.
Not by society… But by a few judges…
BavarianWheels wrote:"...let the weeds grow among the wheat..." As long as the weeds (society) allows homosexuality, same-sex marriage is nothing of (more) consequence to society than homosexuality already is.
Oh.. Well ok… Then I guess we'll just let people drive drunk then too… After all it isn't illegal to drink either… And what about letting a 22 year old male marry and 8 year old girl?? I mean after all, it is a male and a female… ...let the weeds grow among the wheat and do nothing about it.. Nice logic.
BavarianWheels wrote:Wait!! You keep saying that I promote homosexuality supporting a 'no' on Prop 8...but then society does not teach homosexuality is an acceptable practice when it doesn't make homosexuality illegal? I see you pick and choose the areas in which you like to broad-stroke your bias ideas.
It did make homosexuality illegal, and society still does think it is unnatural..
BavarianWheels wrote:What about them?
Apparently nothing to be concerned about with you..
BavarianWheels wrote:Sorry...society endorses it.
Society does NOT endorse homosexual behavior..For centuries marriage has ALWAYS been defined between a man and a woman.. Only after the courts recently repealed the sodomy laws ..