[quote="Cpl. Eames":eda73]
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Madmartagen
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Noctis
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Madmartagen
True, but some people seem to think that despite homosexuality existing prior to the birth of Christ (the foundation of their so-called morality), it is still wrong and cannot be tolerated.
|
GG ignorance.
A large portion of Christian ethics and morality is based upon the laws of the Old Testament, the faith of the Hebrew people which dates back nearly to the beginning of recorded history, when things were still scribed in cuniform. |
You missed the point entirely fucknut:
The point is that homosexuality has been around since before Christianity, before recorded writing, and before ANY religion or civilized society ever existed. So before you get your Rev Schuller on, try and understand that humanity doesnt always revolve around the christian faith, or any other faith for that matter. GG for trying to sound intelligent though, just take the dick out of your mouth before you start talking. |
You missed his point entirely, the point of the matter is not that homosexuality has been around since before christ, who cares?
Actually, that was the point. If you looked at the post Noctis responded to, you would see that I was making a statement in response to what Old Reliable made. Noctis was debating my argument, I dont know what the fuck you are talking about.
That does not make it any more valid. He's saying that its been against western-juedeo-christian values for thousands of years,
My point was, that since homosexuality has existed BEFORE these so called 'values,' it would be the other way around, wouldnt it? How can it be contrary to christian values if it predates it? Maybe Christian values are contrary to human emotions.
the same values that this country was built upon and you can't force people to accept homosexual marriages as being the same as a marriage between a man and a women.
Thats why our constitution was created so that it could be amended as time presented new situations and could keep up with the times. What are you being forced to accept?? Your marriage with a women would not be affected by a marriage between a man and another man. The 'force' in this debate is a person not being able to marry the person he or she loves. Its fine if you dont approve of it, but you dont pass laws and restrictions based on your faith.
Thats what the issue is, when someone decides to be gay they should know they are sacraficing certain rights and privlages,
No one 'decides' to be gay. Being gay is that persons life. The government cannot ask you to sacrifice your rights because of the fact that you are gay.
no one is telling them they can't be gay...but that you can't get married because a "marriage" which has been defined since the begining of time as something between a man and a women. Two homosexual "partners" can not be married, they cant, its not what marriage is.
Again, that is a personal opinion and your viewpoint. Thanks for hiding it in the middle of your post.
Secondly, a point I brought up earlier which no one has even addressed is what would happen if gay marriages were legalized throughout the nation as a result of a supreme court ruling.
Hmm, I didnt catch that one, it must have been disguised under all of your bullshit you alwasy seem to drop here and there. But since we are here...
That ruling would serve as a precedent for other sicko's and perverts to get their demented fetishes
Umm how is homosexuality a fetish?
legalized, because if homosexual marriages are legal why couldnt poligomy be legalized too?
Polygamy is a serperate issue and not even close to homosexuality. This isnt about someones obsessive sex drive or desire to have 15 kids. Furthermore polygamy hurts people because it forces women into a subservient role in multiple marriages. I am against polygamy, whether it is hetero or homosexual.
The implications and precedents that legalizing homosexual marriages are what most people who understand the issue are against. Because they know it would serve as a precedent that would be used to get things such as poligomy legalized
No.
, because homosexual marriages
would have redefined what marriage is.
That is actually a good point. It would redefine what a marriage is. But how is that bad? It would just imply that marriage is between two people, wouldnt it?
It would destroy the family because a family is defined as a husband, wife, and children...however now a days there are much more single parent families, the last thing we need is a guy having 3 wives and 10 kids and two homos adopting a kid...it would destroy the family as we know it and further degenerate our society.
That is polygamy, not homosexuality. Gay marriages do not lead to a rampant case of increased polygamy cases.
Its bad enough you fucking liberals want to take god out of our public lives, but leave the fucking concept of marriage and families alone.[/quote:eda73]
bla bla bla bla bla. Rhetoric.
Damnit it took me forever to resond to that post, Im trying to work here. Next time you want to make a point, dont surround it in bullshit and make sure you read the previous posts. You only made 2 arguments there, and only one was valid; ie the redefinition of marriage. Just face it, you dont want gays to get married because you and every other conservative republican are homophobics and/or you just hate them.