Conquer Club

The thing liberals never understand is that if they would just put forward a positive message about the whole gay marriage business they'd win hands down. The debate would be over. But they'll never do so because it's easier to act like a bunch of children and shout insults at people who believe in traditional marriage. Until they stop using that method, they're going to suffer defeat after defeat whenever it's put to a vote of the people. It just happened yesterday in Maine and that puts the score at 31-0 in favor for people who view marriage between one man and one woman as the norm.

HapSmo19 wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

HapSmo19 wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:WAKE UP! What we really need to fear is hatred. Hatred is what will hurt us all.

Oh look, the rallying cry of the retarded.

MENSA does not seem to think so.

OK. From five minutes ago:

http://www.mensa.org/workout2.php

Your score was 23 out of 30. That is a very good score—you would have a good chance of passing the Mensa test.

What does that have to do with anything?

Nothing at all. She was speaking of the real thing, I'm sure.

bradleybadly wrote:The thing liberals never understand is that if they would just put forward a positive message about the whole gay marriage business they'd win hands down. The debate would be over. But they'll never do so because it's easier to act like a bunch of children and shout insults at people who believe in traditional marriage.

Most "liberals" (what being liberal has to do with it, I don't know) DO promote a positive message about gay marriage (the need for the rights involved). It's the anti-homosexual-marriage contingent that tends toward the insults.

bradleybadly wrote:Until they stop using that method, they're going to suffer defeat after defeat whenever it's put to a vote of the people. It just happened yesterday in Maine and that puts the score at 31-0 in favor for people who view marriage between one man and one woman as the norm.

Of COURSE it's "the norm"...it's the only thing that's LEGAL, so it by definition HAS TO BE "the norm". <slapping forehead>

Woodruff wrote:Most "liberals" (what being liberal has to do with it, I don't know) DO promote a positive message about gay marriage (the need for the rights involved). It's the anti-homosexual-marriage contingent that tends toward the insults.

Oh really!

So you've never heard someone who doesn't happen to support gay marriage being labeled as backward, ignorant, insensitive, repugnant, bigoted, or homophobic?

Do go on about how the left is being uplifting and positive in how they term this debate.

bradleybadly wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Most "liberals" (what being liberal has to do with it, I don't know) DO promote a positive message about gay marriage (the need for the rights involved). It's the anti-homosexual-marriage contingent that tends toward the insults.

Oh really!

So you've never heard someone who doesn't happen to support gay marriage being labeled as backward, ignorant, insensitive, repugnant, bigoted, or homophobic?

Do go on about how the left is being uplifting and positive in how they term this debate.

Oh yeah, the protesters against same-sex marriage use such politically correct methods themselves. Very, very positive of your protests.

Calling you homophobic is not an insult if it's true.

Telling you you're backward when you base your beliefs on nothing set in science or logic is not an insult... if it's true.

Telling you you're ignorant when you (as stated above) refuse to accept scientific literature and instead base your POLICY on religion, cultural norms, and ideas that blatantly promote segregation (something many though was, you know, illegal in this country) is not an insult... if it's true.

When you can't step into someone else's shoes and continue to want and actively FIGHT to promote them having less rights than you based on their lifestyle, well, that covers the rest of the "insults".

you know what I find funny...A gay couple can have sex and be in love all night long, for years and years.....and then 1 day gay marriage is ok, and 1 lover turns to the other, with a tear in their eye, and says "FINALLY, we can be together!"

Phatscotty wrote:you know what I find funny...A gay couple can have sex and be in love all night long, for years and years.....and then 1 day gay marriage is ok, and 1 lover turns to the other, with a tear in their eye, and says "FINALLY, we can be together!"

Considering how integral marriage is to the fabric of society, it's hardly surprising.

Phatscotty wrote:you know what I find funny...A gay couple can have sex and be in love all night long, for years and years.....and then 1 day gay marriage is ok, and 1 lover turns to the other, with a tear in their eye, and says "FINALLY, we can be together!"

Yeah... has nothing to do with being considered equals to the rest of society or anything.

"LOL I find it funny that African Americans had their own schools, bathrooms, restaurants, and "medical facilities" and now these civil rights come along and suddenly it's "FINALLY, we can eat with the rest of society!".

I suppose there's gotta be a group of people opposed to one minority or the other... Congrats on taking this one over guys. The anti-civil rights leaders are really appreciating you continuing their cause. Nathan Forrest would be damn proud.

bradleybadly wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Most "liberals" (what being liberal has to do with it, I don't know) DO promote a positive message about gay marriage (the need for the rights involved). It's the anti-homosexual-marriage contingent that tends toward the insults.

Oh really!

So you've never heard someone who doesn't happen to support gay marriage being labeled as backward, ignorant, insensitive, repugnant, bigoted, or homophobic?

Of course I have. Does the term "most" confuse you, or was it something else entirely?

As well, calling someone "homophobic" is in many cases not an insult, but rather it's a statement of fact based on demonstrated actions and statements. Same with "bigoted". As far as the others, I suppose you make that statement based on the success that the "right" has had with their thoroughly positive and uplifting arguments on this subject? Yeah...I didn't think so either.

bradleybadly wrote:Do go on about how the left is being uplifting and positive in how they term this debate.

I'm definitely not "the left" typically, though I am on this issue...and I notice you haven't responded at all to the points I've made. Perhaps that's why you believe they aren't positive?

Phatscotty wrote:you know what I find funny...A gay couple can have sex and be in love all night long, for years and years.....and then 1 day gay marriage is ok, and 1 lover turns to the other, with a tear in their eye, and says "FINALLY, we can be together!"

<laughing> True enough, I suppose. My only real problem with the current status of gay-marriage is the inability to gain the rights that they should have as the significant-other of someone. For me, it's not a "marriage issue", it's a "rights issue".

Woodruff wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:So you will have Tom wanting to marry his sister, Joe wanting to marry his niece, and you know there is some freak out there who will want to marry his dog! And thus, the domino effect.

This doesn't even make basic sense. Stopping reproduction among close relatives has legal justification due to the problems the progeny are likely to have. Marriage to an animal would be stopped based on the fact that there couldn't be "consent" from the animal. Do you even think these things through before you say them?

But what if they LOVE each other? Don't they have the RIGHT to be together if they are in LOVE? Who cares if they are brother and sister? They can screw each others brains out because it is their RIGHT to be in LOVE.

Seriously though, based in the "liberal" opinion that homosexual marriages are acceptable, couldn't the same logic be applied to incestuous relationships, provided there are no genetic offspring? Or is that what you want next if equal rights for gay couples are achieved?

Burrito wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:So you will have Tom wanting to marry his sister, Joe wanting to marry his niece, and you know there is some freak out there who will want to marry his dog! And thus, the domino effect.

This doesn't even make basic sense. Stopping reproduction among close relatives has legal justification due to the problems the progeny are likely to have. Marriage to an animal would be stopped based on the fact that there couldn't be "consent" from the animal. Do you even think these things through before you say them?

But what if they LOVE each other? Don't they have the RIGHT to be together if they are in LOVE? Who cares if they are brother and sister? They can screw each others brains out because it is their RIGHT to be in LOVE.
Seriously though, based in the "liberal" opinion that homosexual marriages are acceptable, couldn't the same logic be applied to incestuous relationships, provided there are no genetic offspring? Or is that what you want next if equal rights for gay couples are achieved?

For me personally, I would say that if there is NO CHANCE of genetic offspring, then it would be perfectly acceptable (otherwise, I honestly consider it child abuse). And I'm not particularly liberal.

jay_a2j wrote:It's not about "equal rights" it's about special rights.
A man or woman HAS the right to marry already..... to the OPPOSITE sex. Same sex marriage is a "special right". Marriage has held a traditional formula for thousands of years, man + woman = marriage. If same sex couples are allowed to marry it will open the floodgates. (and you liberals shut the hell up, once people obtain a "victory" they ALWAYS push the envelope to see how far they can go) So you will have Tom wanting to marry his sister, Joe wanting to marry his niece, and you know there is some freak out there who will want to marry his dog! And thus, the domino effect.


If it was about "rights", then EVERYTHING BUT MARRIAGE should satisfy that..... but no...


Sorry to my gay and lesbian friends you do not have the right to marry the same sex. Same as our illegal friends crossing the boarder don't have the "right" to be here.



But my prediction is.... all US States will eventually allow it. This is what happens when we distance ourselves from God and His ways. But there will be a price to pay.

What its really about is whether you get to tell other people how to live their lives. Except this country was founded upon the idea of individual rights to choose their lifestyles, be it religious practices or other things you just don't happen to like. The exception is when something harms someone else.

Let's say your scenerio is even correct (its not, but that has been covered). So what? How, exactly does it harm you if Joe decides to marry whomever he pleases? Not a darn thing! That is the reality.

Think it will spread? Then I guess churches and Christians, other religious individuals are not doing a great job of putting forward their message.

You claim to follow Christ. Christ did give us rules, but he did not tell us to go out and do battle with those who do not accept God or himself. We are to talk, to show love and caring, to care for their needs and show the love of Christ. If you want to tell them they are going to hell... go ahead. You won't get very far, because people tend not to listen to those who shout obscenities and tell them what horrible people they are. Do whatever you wish, short of physical or emotional harm. Maybe for one in a million, it might even work. But, be ready to take the same as you give in reverse. You lecture... you will hear a few lectures in return. If you cannot change someone, you have no right to condemn them in a free society.

If someone causes you harm, then YOU leave, YOU go to your own little enclave and live your life there. That's what the Amish, other old order groups do and unless they start harming kids or such, they are left alone. Neither the Bible, Christ's words or even our constitution give you (or I) the right to dictate how someone else will live unless it harms us.

Some claim that homosexuality is harmful because it "spreads"... well, guess what. I have heard plenty of people claim that women should not wear pants.. or shorts... or bikinis becuase it makes men rape them. A few years ago, a lot of folks even believed that. This idea you have is about the same.

If you truly knew anyone who was homosexual, if you had any knowledge at all of the lifestyles, the community, you could not speak as you do. Are there idiots in that group? Of course! There are idiots in any group. But, that is no more reason to deny people the right to live how they wish than it is to deny people to worship how they wish, to eat at the restaurants they wish (providing they pay, of course), etc.

Get out of the dark ages... the time when we burn heretics is long past. Imagine .. Protestants have even lived side-by-side with Roman Catholics for a few years. Jews and Muslims seem to do fine as well. So, homosexuals are next. So, you don't like their lifestyle. Either go bury YOURSELF in a mountain hideaway or decide that you have the right to teach your kids, to talk in your church, but not to tell the rest of the world how to live their lives.

If you cannot change them, then you have no right to condemn them. God made them. It is for God to decide, not you.

And.. for your other garbage. Christ is the uniter, the messenger of love and forgiveness. The divider, the proponent of hatred is not Christ.

bradleybadly wrote:The thing liberals never understand is that if they would just put forward a positive message about the whole gay marriage business they'd win hands down. The debate would be over. But they'll never do so because it's easier to act like a bunch of children and shout insults at people who believe in traditional marriage. Until they stop using that method, they're going to suffer defeat after defeat whenever it's put to a vote of the people.

LIBERALS are spreading hatred and calling names? Funny, seems that this is about letting folks live their lives and NOT be abused for it. The folks who object have some pretty harsh terms, some pretty harsh tactics.

jay_a2j wrote:It just happened yesterday in Maine and that puts the score at 31-0 in favor for people who view marriage between one man and one woman as the norm.

No, it put the number of states who put it to a vote at 31-0, most people don't even vote. Many of those who did are suffering from extreme misinformation put forward by both bigoted and naive individuals who see doomsday coming simply because a few people decide they don't want to live as you and I.

jay_a2j wrote:But my prediction is.... all US States will eventually allow it. This is what happens when we distance ourselves from God and His ways. But there will be a price to pay.

Oh no! Will a non-existant-all-powerful being smite me from heaven?!?

Or maybe, your God will smite you for being bigoted towards a group of your fellow man.

Woodruff wrote:As well, calling someone "homophobic" is in many cases not an insult, but rather it's a statement of fact based on demonstrated actions and statements. Same with "bigoted". As far as the others, I suppose you make that statement based on the success that the "right" has had with their thoroughly positive and uplifting arguments on this subject? Yeah...I didn't think so either.

How absolutely convenient for you. Just define the terms however you want in order to be able to judge others. Until that elitist attitude is swept away I guarantee you that the 0-31 record which the left has racked up on this issue will continue.

bradleybadly wrote:

Woodruff wrote:As well, calling someone "homophobic" is in many cases not an insult, but rather it's a statement of fact based on demonstrated actions and statements. Same with "bigoted". As far as the others, I suppose you make that statement based on the success that the "right" has had with their thoroughly positive and uplifting arguments on this subject? Yeah...I didn't think so either.

How absolutely convenient for you. Just define the terms however you want in order to be able to judge others.

No, I use the terms as they are already defined. Homophobic is a word already defined and, in many cases, it is an accurate depiction. Same with bigoted.

bradleybadly wrote:Until that elitist attitude is swept away I guarantee you that the 0-31 record which the left has racked up on this issue will continue.

Being able to use a dictionary and logic is elitist? If that's honestly what you think, then I'm all for elitism...this world needs a hell of a lot more of it, and I wish more people would fit the definition.

PLAYER57832 wrote:But, that is no more reason to deny people the right to live how they wish than it is to deny people to worship how they wish, to eat at the restaurants they wish (providing they pay, of course), etc.

Get out of the dark ages... the time when we burn heretics is long past. Imagine .. Protestants have even lived side-by-side with Roman Catholics for a few years. Jews and Muslims seem to do fine as well. So, homosexuals are next. So, you don't like their lifestyle. Either go bury YOURSELF in a mountain hideaway or decide that you have the right to teach your kids, to talk in your church, but not to tell the rest of the world how to live their lives.

If you cannot change them, then you have no right to condemn them. God made them. It is for God to decide, not you.

And.. for your other garbage. Christ is the uniter, the messenger of love and forgiveness. The divider, the proponent of hatred is not Christ.

I can see why atheists are for same sex marriage, but for you to try to use the Bible and Christianity to promote it is indefensible. You completely ignore specific verses which define it as sin, which is disobedience against God. I'm sure you'll get a lot of atheists in here to defend your position and you'll enjoy the temporary praise. Enjoy it for the short time it lasts in these forums. There is absolutely no way you are a true Christian. A theist - yes, but definitely not a follower of the Bible.

lgoasklucyl wrote:Damn... Shame you weren't around when medical care was a "special right" for African Americans- they really could have used someone quite as insensitive as you to lobby on their side.

Oh... And perhaps if you take your head out of your religion/culture's and looked into cultures where they are ( ) accepting of marriages (yep- it happens outside of your religion/culture!) between same sex individuals. So, your 'thousands of years' comment is 100% moot due to your blatant cultural insensitivity. Though, I would expect nothing less from you.

For starters being African-America does not violate God's laws. Try again.


You don't say?! There are actually cultures who blatantly violate God's laws? Oh the humanity! I would have never thought!


It's not moot my friend. Name 1 "culture" who officially recognized same sex marriage before, lets say 1970? (had to extend it a bit, ya never know, those crazy Europeans are unpredictable) Meanwhile, I'll grab a Snickers.

jay_a2j wrote:

lgoasklucyl wrote:Damn... Shame you weren't around when medical care was a "special right" for African Americans- they really could have used someone quite as insensitive as you to lobby on their side.

Oh... And perhaps if you take your head out of your religion/culture's and looked into cultures where they are ( ) accepting of marriages (yep- it happens outside of your religion/culture!) between same sex individuals. So, your 'thousands of years' comment is 100% moot due to your blatant cultural insensitivity. Though, I would expect nothing less from you.

For starters being African-America does not violate God's laws. Try again.


You don't say?! There are actually cultures who blatantly violate God's laws? Oh the humanity! I would have never thought!


It's not moot my friend. Name 1 "culture" who officially recognized same sex marriage before, lets say 1970? (had to extend it a bit, ya never know, those crazy Europeans are unpredictable) Meanwhile, I'll grab a Snickers.

Jay, this could get very complicated for you...

For the interest of keeping things simplistic, If an indivdual has the same sexual organs as their partner are you defining it as same sex in terms of partnership? If so, if the culture does not practice marriage in the same fashion we do in the west, yet they remain together as committed partners, can it be understood as an equiavlent to marriage?

PLAYER57832 wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:It's not about "equal rights" it's about special rights.
A man or woman HAS the right to marry already..... to the OPPOSITE sex. Same sex marriage is a "special right". Marriage has held a traditional formula for thousands of years, man + woman = marriage. If same sex couples are allowed to marry it will open the floodgates. (and you liberals shut the hell up, once people obtain a "victory" they ALWAYS push the envelope to see how far they can go) So you will have Tom wanting to marry his sister, Joe wanting to marry his niece, and you know there is some freak out there who will want to marry his dog! And thus, the domino effect.


If it was about "rights", then EVERYTHING BUT MARRIAGE should satisfy that..... but no...


Sorry to my gay and lesbian friends you do not have the right to marry the same sex. Same as our illegal friends crossing the boarder don't have the "right" to be here.


But my prediction is.... all US States will eventually allow it. This is what happens when we distance ourselves from God and His ways. But there will be a price to pay.

What its really about is whether you get to tell other people how to live their lives. Except this country was founded upon the idea of individual rights to choose their lifestyles, be it religious practices or other things you just don't happen to like. The exception is when something harms someone else.

Let's say your scenerio is even correct (its not, but that has been covered). So what? How, exactly does it harm you if Joe decides to marry whomever he pleases? Not a darn thing! That is the reality.

Think it will spread? Then I guess churches and Christians, other religious individuals are not doing a great job of putting forward their message.

You claim to follow Christ. Christ did give us rules, but he did not tell us to go out and do battle with those who do not accept God or himself. We are to talk, to show love and caring, to care for their needs and show the love of Christ. If you want to tell them they are going to hell... go ahead. You won't get very far, because people tend not to listen to those who shout obscenities and tell them what horrible people they are. Do whatever you wish, short of physical or emotional harm. Maybe for one in a million, it might even work. But, be ready to take the same as you give in reverse. You lecture... you will hear a few lectures in return. If you cannot change someone, you have no right to condemn them in a free society.

If someone causes you harm, then YOU leave, YOU go to your own little enclave and live your life there. That's what the Amish, other old order groups do and unless they start harming kids or such, they are left alone. Neither the Bible, Christ's words or even our constitution give you (or I) the right to dictate how someone else will live unless it harms us.

Some claim that homosexuality is harmful because it "spreads"... well, guess what. I have heard plenty of people claim that women should not wear pants.. or shorts... or bikinis becuase it makes men rape them. A few years ago, a lot of folks even believed that. This idea you have is about the same.

If you truly knew anyone who was homosexual, if you had any knowledge at all of the lifestyles, the community, you could not speak as you do. Are there idiots in that group? Of course! There are idiots in any group. But, that is no more reason to deny people the right to live how they wish than it is to deny people to worship how they wish, to eat at the restaurants they wish (providing they pay, of course), etc.

Get out of the dark ages... the time when we burn heretics is long past. Imagine .. Protestants have even lived side-by-side with Roman Catholics for a few years. Jews and Muslims seem to do fine as well. So, homosexuals are next. So, you don't like their lifestyle. Either go bury YOURSELF in a mountain hideaway or decide that you have the right to teach your kids, to talk in your church, but not to tell the rest of the world how to live their lives.

If you cannot change them, then you have no right to condemn them. God made them. It is for God to decide, not you.

And.. for your other garbage. Christ is the uniter, the messenger of love and forgiveness. The divider, the proponent of hatred is not Christ.

No, what its really about is standing up for that which pleases God and condemning that which God deems an abomination. I couldn't care less if you and Cindy get married. I'm just going to tell you, as is my duty as a Christian, that its wrong. How many times did Jesus say to the sinner, "Go and sin no more"? What was John thinking telling people to "Repent and be baptized!" How dare they judge!!!!


Which verse are you basing you christian walk on anyways? I don't recall reading a verse that commands us to be quiet and refrain from telling people that which is good and that which is bad in the eyes of God. You seem very supportive of "equal rights" as if Gods laws are an afterthought. As if you support anything contrary to the Word of God as long as "it doesn't harm you". Ever stop and think about someone other than yourself? Like God maybe... and that maybe you should spend a little time defending his guidelines on how we should live instead of supporting the opposite? You do a disservice to the Christian community and God Himself when you lobby for things like gay rights. If Moses, Noah, Mathew, Mark or John were alive today I doubt you would see them carrying a rainbow flag in any parade.


Please refrain from putting words in my mouth. I never said anyone was "going to hell" nor did I condemn anyone. But I don't expect you to stop as you continually do it.

Let's just kill everyone who is not a caucasian heterosexual christian and we won't have any more problems! Everybody will be the same and nobody will fight about anything! Yayy!

jay_a2j wrote:

lgoasklucyl wrote:Damn... Shame you weren't around when medical care was a "special right" for African Americans- they really could have used someone quite as insensitive as you to lobby on their side.

Oh... And perhaps if you take your head out of your religion/culture's and looked into cultures where they are ( ) accepting of marriages (yep- it happens outside of your religion/culture!) between same sex individuals. So, your 'thousands of years' comment is 100% moot due to your blatant cultural insensitivity. Though, I would expect nothing less from you.

1) For starters being African-America does not violate God's laws. Try again.


You don't say?! There are actually cultures who blatantly violate God's laws? Oh the humanity! I would have never thought!


It's not moot my friend. 2) Name 1 "culture" who officially recognized same sex marriage before, lets say 1970? (had to extend it a bit, ya never know, those crazy Europeans are unpredictable) Meanwhile, I'll grab a Snickers.

1) Actually, being homosexual doesn't violate God's laws. It's the sexual acts of homosexuality that are forbidden. (Thank my 5 years of Catholic propaganda school for that one). Or so says the Catholic Church, rubber stamped by the word of God himself, the Pope. Would you like to carry the silliness of Christianity and the Bible one step further?

2) I'd like to see how you define same sex marriage as got tonkaed mentioned earlier, but for starters let's just cite the example of the acceptable practice of same sex "marriage" within ancient Greece. But if you'd like to take this further, we can include past deities gender-blending like Egypt's Alton. The emperors Nero and Caligula had sex with men and women. Nero actually married a castrated man.

There's no sources, and I myself am not an expert on these matters, but this website provides numerous examples: http://www.suphawut.com/gvb/gayly/gay_history2.htm.

"Saul of Tarsus authored many passages condemning homosexuality and promoting homophobia. Upon translation, however, it was later found that Saul had his own homosexual tendencies. The actual translation reads more accurately that nothing is in and of itself wrong, it is only wrong depending on the perspective of the beholder."

---HEY, they're talking about you Jay!

Same sex "marriage" isn't really a new concept and has been practiced for a very long time.

BigBallinStalin wrote:
1) Actually, being homosexual doesn't violate God's laws. It's the sexual acts of homosexuality that are forbidden. (Thank my 5 years of Catholic propaganda school for that one). Or so says the Catholic Church, rubber stamped by the word of God himself, the Pope. Would you like to carry the silliness of Christianity and the Bible one step further?

2) I'd like to see how you define same sex marriage as got tonkaed mentioned earlier, but for starters let's just cite the example of the acceptable practice of same sex "marriage" within ancient Greece. But if you'd like to take this further, we can include past deities gender-blending like Egypt's Alton. The emperors Nero and Caligula had sex with men and women. Nero actually married a castrated man.

There's no sources, and I myself am not an expert on these matters, but this website provides numerous examples: http://www.suphawut.com/gvb/gayly/gay_history2.htm.

"Saul of Tarsus authored many passages condemning homosexuality and promoting homophobia. Upon translation, however, it was later found that Saul had his own homosexual tendencies. The actual translation reads more accurately that nothing is in and of itself wrong, it is only wrong depending on the perspective of the beholder."

---HEY, they're talking about you Jay!

Same sex "marriage" isn't really a new concept and has been practiced for a very long time.

1.) What defines a homosexual? Hmmm could it be one who engages in homosexual acts? So, if you are homosexual you are most likely engaging in homosexual acts which is forbidden. Your argument is very weak. And fyi, the Pope is not the Word of God.

2.) Marriage. Not a same sex couple. But the lawful wedded bliss of taking another as your spouse. Recognized by the government (whichever one that may be) to be a lawful union. {I can't believe I have to define what a marriage is} Post proof Nero was married to another man, not having sex with, not living with, not shopping for Revlon with, but married to. As far as Saul goes, give me a break. Nothing more that gay propaganda. It's unfounded, unsubstantiated and unproven not to mention ridiculous. BUT even if this were to be true (which I highly doubt) when he converted to Christianity God changed his name to Paul. Before the conversion he even persecuted Christians. What Saul/Paul may have done before his conversion is irrelevant, he had been forgiven.

jay_a2j wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:It's not about "equal rights" it's about special rights.
A man or woman HAS the right to marry already..... to the OPPOSITE sex. Same sex marriage is a "special right". Marriage h....................world how to live their lives.

If you cannot change them, then you have no right to condemn them. God made them. It is for God to decide, not you.

And.. for your other garbage. Christ is the uniter, the messenger of love and forgiveness. The divider, the proponent of hatred is not Christ.

No, what its really about is standing up for that which pleases God and condemning that which God deems an abomination. I couldn't care less if you and Cindy get married. I'm just going to tell you, 1) as is my duty as a Christian, that its wrong. How many times did Jesus say to the sinner, "Go and sin no more"? What was John thinking telling people to "Repent and be baptized!" 2) How dare they judge!!!!


Which verse are you basing you christian walk on anyways? 3) I don't recall reading a verse that commands us to be quiet and refrain from telling people that which is good and that which is bad in the eyes of God. You seem very supportive of "equal rights" as 4) if Gods laws are an afterthought. As if you support anything contrary to the Word of God as long as "it doesn't harm you". Ever stop and think about someone other than yourself? Like God maybe... and that maybe you should spend a little time defending his guidelines on how we should live instead of supporting the opposite? 5) You do a disservice to the Christian community and God Himself when you lobby for things like gay rights. 6) If Moses, Noah, Mathew, Mark or John were alive today I doubt you would see them carrying a rainbow flag in any parade.


Please refrain from putting words in my mouth. I never said anyone was "going to hell" nor did I condemn anyone. But I don't expect you to stop as you continually do it.

1) For the sake of avoiding confusion, please stop labeling yourself as merely a Christian. I'd like for you to from now on label yourself as an "extremist Christian."

2) Judging others, huh? You really haven't taken Jesus's (or Jesus') words to heart, haven't you, our dear judging and non-loving friend?

3) Turning the other cheek may be related. Also, judging others is a big "no-no." Loving your neighbors as Jesus has loved you rates pretty high on the charts--maybe not yours, but you should look into it and practice that before you march off with your self-interpreted religious Crusade (or is it not self-interpreted? Are you merely regurgitating what your religious superiors feed you?)

4) God's laws. Another great example as to why you should now label yourself as an extremist Christian. You sound so strikingly similar to those extreme Muslims who advocate for the total legal enforcement for the Shari'ah Islamic Law, and nearly all of whom do not wish to have any other bodies of law working alongside it.

---And what exactly is God's Law? Are we going to go with the OT, the NT, the King James version, some other European King's edited version, the Torah, the Qu'ran? ALL of those contain God's laws... and I think some may be contradicting one another. Hopefully, that's not due to human interpretation of "God's word," and due to God's playing a little joke on us, right?? Hmm...

5) Correction: YOU are doing disservice to God and to the Christian community by not supporting equal rights. But go run to your book and skim right over that whole bit about Jesus saying 'to love one another as I have loved you' and go right to that verse that only suits your narrow-minded and hateful propaganda. Something like, "Homosexuality is BAD." Nevermind anything more detailed beyond that, you'll just read what you want to read, and that's that.

6) Assuming they'd quickly recover from the immense amount of cultural shock from all sides... But this is silly, you really can't speak for the dead, jay. Actually, that probably is wrong--speaking on the dead's behalf, as if you yourself know what they know and what they felt. You don't have almighty powers, so stop that; it's embarrassing for your fellow human being to hear such things, and it's a bit disrespectful to the dead, in my humble opinion.

jay_a2j wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:
1) Actually, being homosexual doesn't violate God's laws. It's the sexual acts of homosexuality that are forbidden. (Thank my 5 years of Catholic propaganda school for that one). Or so says the Catholic Church, rubber stamped by the word of God himself, the Pope. Would you like to carry the silliness of Christianity and the Bible one step further?

2) I'd like to see how you define same sex marriage as got tonkaed mentioned earlier, but for starters let's just cite the example of the acceptable practice of same sex "marriage" within ancient Greece. But if you'd like to take this further, we can include past deities gender-blending like Egypt's Alton. The emperors Nero and Caligula had sex with men and women. Nero actually married a castrated man.

There's no sources, and I myself am not an expert on these matters, but this website provides numerous examples: http://www.suphawut.com/gvb/gayly/gay_history2.htm.

"Saul of Tarsus authored many passages condemning homosexuality and promoting homophobia. Upon translation, however, it was later found that Saul had his own homosexual tendencies. The actual translation reads more accurately that nothing is in and of itself wrong, it is only wrong depending on the perspective of the beholder."

---HEY, they're talking about you Jay!

Same sex "marriage" isn't really a new concept and has been practiced for a very long time.

1.) What defines a homosexual? Hmmm could it be one who engages in homosexual acts? So, if you are homosexual you are most likely engaging in homosexual acts which is forbidden. Your argument is very weak. And fyi, the Pope is not the Word of God.

2.) Marriage. Not a same sex couple. But the lawful wedded bliss of taking another as your spouse. Recognized by the government (whichever one that may be) to be a lawful union. {I can't believe I have to define what a marriage is} Post proof Nero was married to another man, not having sex with, not living with, not shopping for Revlon with, but married to. As far as Saul goes, give me a break. Nothing more that gay propaganda. It's unfounded, unsubstantiated and unproven not to mention ridiculous. BUT even if this were to be true (which I highly doubt) when he converted to Christianity God changed his name to Paul. Before the conversion he even persecuted Christians. What Saul/Paul may have done before his conversion is irrelevant, he had been forgiven.

1) A homosexual is not exactly defined as one who engages in homosexual acts; one can be homosexual without ever having been engaged in homosexual acts. The law is the law, Jay. You have to first prove that the said homosexual couple has engaged in homosexual activities before you begin your judicious application of the Bible's law on that one. Also, you'd have to delve into their brains and make them confess! Without that confession, it would be hard to get proof. And who made you judge? BAM, back at'cha, jay! .

Besides, I'm simply bringing to light the Catholic Churches position on this, so go yell at them, ya extremist.

AND THE WORD OF THE POPE IS GOD'S WORD MADE INFALLIBLE!!!
----Honestly, like I said before, it's silly, but I'm glad you jumped on it anyway with your silliness. This is fun! Let's continue...


2) Jay, you didn't answer guy tonkaed's question about marriage, did you? So answer that before we go on. I just like seeing how you try to interpret a modern idea and apply it to the past, where such concepts were not exactly the same. That's why defining precisely what exactly "same sex marriage" is and how to apply in the past is so important.

You're using a modern definition and assuming it's the exact same thing in the past, to reiterate in case you're having trouble understanding...

And you ignored Ancient Greece example, why?