Quote: Originally posted by Mixell  | | Quote: Originally posted by Rosco Bodine | | Quote: Originally posted by Mixell | People have the right to do what they please, as long as it does not directly harms another person. Tell me, how exactly same sex marriage harms you?
Or it just doesn't settle with your religious beliefs? If the answer to the last question is yes, then though luck, its your problem, not theirs. And
about the nature of homosexuality, did you know that a lot of animals practice same gender intercourse?
Of-course you have the freedom belief what you want (even fairy tails, for example little red hoodie, although I don't really see the difference
between this and...umm... religion). But you don't have the right to dictate to other people how they should live their life. Oh, and threatening
people that they will go to hell, how typical...
And about the "A problem with the alternative path is the destination." I'm pretty sure there is no destination, more precisely: I did not encounter
any evidence that support its existence, and the source of this idea is not the most reliable around (between reliability and it, there is a huge gap
filled with modern scientific discoveries and just plain logic). So I could say a thing with a similar note to it: If the destination is out of the
equation (and probably is) then only the path matters.
And to another topic: The problem with hatred it is not the existence of the hatred itself, but the actions that some people take in the name of
hatred. If everybody could just hate other people deep inside and that will be all, it would be a lot better world. But unfortunately, people tend to
try and offend/hurt/kill (sometimes even using extreme violence) other people/groups because of their hatred towards them. And that it why we need to
minimize the spread of hatred, or at least keep it behind closed doors. |
I am a husband to a wife and a father to children. I know what a marriage is, as a respectable and legitimate status and an honorable and unique
relationship which for millenia has been by definition the formal committed relationship between a man and a woman, a husband and a wife .....
no others need apply or pretend it is otherwise. Activist judges with their heretical lie and counterfeit can burn in hell with their proponents.
So a hundred million homosexuals and their partners can't be wrong huh to redefine their "committed relationships" as being marriage? It is a
preposterous joke in poor taste which seeks to devalue something legitimately unique and honorable to equate it with something that is definitely not
marriage. It is a counterfeiting and subverting the word marriage and the exclusive generally correctly accepted and established idea and reality of
what it means. Homosexual marriage is an oxymoron and a lie.
This is more evidence of the "confusion" about which I have spoken already which is a credential of persons for which there is nothing sacred,
including more probably than not the very definition of the status of the parents whose marriage was the reason for their birth. Enter the fruit loop
activists who are seeking legitimacy for what isn't legitimate.
No, people do not "have the right" (fill in the blank) to do as they damn well please (not in any qualified nor unqualified sense)
whatsoever.....
not just because they say so nor because any government on earth says so.
You confuse a "right" with what is a privilege, an entitlement defined and guaranteed by the state. Rights are an endowment from God not a
dispensation from the state or society.
Neither the state nor society invented the sacrament of marriage, or the natural families that resulted from marriages of men and women.
Holy Matrimony, or sacramerntal marriage has for millenia been synonymous with "marriage" in the common use of language.
As for redefining the reality of what is marriage, that is simply another subversive activist agenda to subvert what is good to what is evil and blur
any distinction by deception and rationalizations which are not valid. And atheists think they are so clever at dismissal of anything having
religious origin by their ridicule and fearlessness of the "supernatural" ....
Yes, don't they all have their rap down pat, complete with
all the literature and philosophies which embolden them to live sinful lives fearing no accountability of course, since they don't really believe any
judgement awaits them. Of course they are their own judge of everything whatever,
and necessarily according to their belief nothing is sacred so there will be no consequences for error. Having no real code for values or morality,
no real basis for any distinction between what is right and wrong, they then live their lives accordingly. It's tough to correct those who in their
own minds can do no wrong. No conscience, no values, no ethics, ....
no shame or guilt ....
Now there's quite a plan for worldly bliss. But it isn't any path to heaven. There's only one way there.
Definitely it's time for Johnny Cash
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQcNiD0Z3MU Personal Jesus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9IfHDi-2EA When The Man Comes Around
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aw2XJ0mlUnM When The Man Comes Around
[Edited on 30-8-2011 by Rosco Bodine] |
So you basically want your religion to have a monopoly on marriage? And the justification for this is "my god says so"?
Why are you so upset with other people trying to achieve what you have (the title "marriage")? If you don't like it this much, can't you just ignore
them? |
The justification that God says so is quite good enough for this subject. No I won't ignore subversives when an established valued institution called
marriage which normal people regard as an absolute, is being devalued to mean a "partnership" consummated by sodomy as the only physically possible
kind of sexual union for homosexuals. This is offensive to the point of being quite totally insane and is simply unacceptable. Next beastiality
couplings will be accorded status as marriage also.....why not? If a person wants to have a committed relationship with their dog, sheep, or horse,
then who is "right" to deny them the status of marriage?
| Quote: |
And about the "for centuries it was this and that" argument", for centuries mankind believed that the world is flat, for centuries they believed in
the existence of sea monsters, should I continue? You live in the 21 century (or at least your body is),you can't justify things by saying that they
existed for centuries, and that makes them indisputable. Using that lime of thought you can say "I don't need vaccines, mankind had lived without them
for dozens of thousands of years. |
Such empty rationalizations fall absolutely flat. That stuff is nonsense. A debate is manufactured about a matter where there actually never was any
bona fide debate, and then a redefining of reality was imposed by subversives and activists as the answer, which creates a larger problem.
| Quote: |
And here we continue to morality, you claim that you need some book to tell you what is wrong and is not? |
"some book" is not exactly an accurate characterization of what is the Holy Bible. | Quote: |
Can't you figure this out yourself? |
No you can't figure it out for yourself. | Quote: | | I do not know about you, but I am a moral person and I do got values and similar things, you know why? |
If
you think homosexual unions are equivalent to marriage, then your morality and values are in serious doubt. | Quote: |
Because it is partly in my genetic code and partly implanted in me by the society. People had lived in social groups for dozens or hundreds of
thousands of years. Those who were more social and more contributing to the group survived better, and those genetic traits were carried and improved
by the generations that followed them. |
A herd or pack mentality is not the basis of human morality.
| Quote: |
And seriously, how can you claim to be a moral persons while threatening and telling people that they will suffer unimaginable pain and torture for
infinity, just because they don't believe in the same absurd things that you believe in?
[Edited on 30-8-2011 by Mixell] |
How about because it is duty to declare the truth. That is something in which all your rationalizations is deficient. All the "child of the
universe" crap is denial of whose children are humankind. There is no secular morality, no code, no ethic, no soul or conscience about it. Anything
genuine in those regards comes from something nobler and higher, namely God. Without that then you are an orphan spirit lost in a lost world where
you plod along trying to figure out knowledge that has been known for millenia and is yours free for the asking. But you are too proud to ask and too
arrogant, overconfident in your own wisdom to be accepting of something just that simple. What is the knowledge of fifty generations of ancients
compared to what any smartass may imagine in a few brief years experience in a "modern" world ......the very idea of having intelligent ancestors who
availed themselves of their own parents and elders wisdom
about "facts of life" should not be difficult to accept. If the ancient wisdom was not urgently important, then why would so much effort be invested
in its recording and preservation as the inheritance of those yet to be born ? The answer is simple ....because the ancestors wished for their
children and their children's children's children to survive. Rejecting that wisdom that is your birthright out of hand is basically squandering your
birthright for nothing, giving you nothing worthwhile to pass on. Your loss and possibly the end of your own lineage is also part of the bargain as
the reward of "natural selection". |
