A Reasonable Solution To The Gay Marriage Debate

[koshergrl]

I mentioned it because it is a clear proof that the definition of marriage has NOT been 1 man & 1 woman for thousands of years. That is all it means. I did not bring up religion. I did not advocate for catholics of protestants. I simply shot down one of the excuses neocons use.

HUH NO!!!!!!!!!! Yes you did bring up religion stop lying.

I guess this is what passes for debate in your world??

Once again, show me where the bible or religion approves of or advocates selling indulgences and/or covering up for pedophiles? Because the catholic church did those too.

So if I bring up the church selling indulgences, you would claim I brought up religion?

If I complained about how bad the traffic was when the baptist church up the street lets out, would you claim I was bringing up religon?

My post spoke only of historic actions of the catholic church. I did not judge whether they are right or wrong, in accordance with scripture, or even religious in nature. Just that the church once performed wedding rituals between men.

Telling lies isn't an accepted debate practice. So you may anticipate when you tell lies, the response will be "You are a liar". There's no reason for anything more. The lie was proven, you're a liar, there's no debate.

See, if something is factual and true...there's no debate. Once something has been proven, that's the end of the discussion.

We don't have to "debate" your truthfulness, there's no reason to. You're a liar. Why engage in debate with a liar?

 

[WinterBorn]

HUH NO!!!!!!!!!! Yes you did bring up religion stop lying.

I guess this is what passes for debate in your world??

Once again, show me where the bible or religion approves of or advocates selling indulgences and/or covering up for pedophiles? Because the catholic church did those too.

So if I bring up the church selling indulgences, you would claim I brought up religion?

If I complained about how bad the traffic was when the baptist church up the street lets out, would you claim I was bringing up religon?

My post spoke only of historic actions of the catholic church. I did not judge whether they are right or wrong, in accordance with scripture, or even religious in nature. Just that the church once performed wedding rituals between men.

Telling lies isn't an accepted debate practice. So you may anticipate when you tell lies, the response will be "You are a liar". There's no reason for anything more. The lie was proven, you're a liar, there's no debate.

See, if something is factual and true...there's no debate. Once something has been proven, that's the end of the discussion.

We don't have to "debate" your truthfulness, there's no reason to. You're a liar. Why engage in debate with a liar?

And what lie did I tell?

 

[koshergrl]

You brought up religion, then denied it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I mentioned it because it is a clear proof that the definition of marriage has NOT been 1 man & 1 woman for thousands of years. That is all it means. I did not bring up religion. I did not advocate for catholics of protestants. I simply shot down one of the excuses neocons use.

HUH NO!!!!!!!!!! Yes you did bring up religion stop lying.

I guess this is what passes for debate in your world??

Once again, show me where the bible or religion approves of or advocates selling indulgences and/or covering up for pedophiles? Because the catholic church did those too.

So if I bring up the church selling indulgences, you would claim I brought up religion?

If I complained about how bad the traffic was when the baptist church up the street lets out, would you claim I was bringing up religon?

My post spoke only of historic actions of the catholic church. I did not judge whether they are right or wrong, in accordance with scripture, or even religious in nature. Just that the church once performed wedding rituals between men.

My post spoke only of historic actions of the catholic church.

Historical? OK we're going historical so the Bible is the History of the Christian faith.
No what your post did give the opinion of one man who is not a biblical scholar. He's a historian, but is not a BIBLICAL scholar. And as the Catholic church goes they are not protestants and do not speak for them. Why do you think Protestants broke away from the Catholic church?

Oh and when you lie I will call you on it and you have. When you mention any part about a Church you are in fact mentioning religion.

Just that the church once performed wedding rituals between men.

There you did it again you mentioned RELIGION


18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You brought up religion, then denied it.

Yes he did then said the Bible could not be used because this subject is not a religous subject

 

[WinterBorn]

You brought up religion, then denied it.

So any discussion of any action by the catholic church is, by defintion, a discussion of religion? What nonsense.

 

[WinterBorn]

HUH NO!!!!!!!!!! Yes you did bring up religion stop lying.

I guess this is what passes for debate in your world??

Once again, show me where the bible or religion approves of or advocates selling indulgences and/or covering up for pedophiles? Because the catholic church did those too.

So if I bring up the church selling indulgences, you would claim I brought up religion?

If I complained about how bad the traffic was when the baptist church up the street lets out, would you claim I was bringing up religon?

My post spoke only of historic actions of the catholic church. I did not judge whether they are right or wrong, in accordance with scripture, or even religious in nature. Just that the church once performed wedding rituals between men.

My post spoke only of historic actions of the catholic church.

Historical? OK we're going historical so the Bible is the History of the Christian faith.
No what your post did give the opinion of one man who is not a biblical scholar. He's a historian, but is not a BIBLICAL scholar. And as the Catholic church goes they are not protestants and do not speak for them. Why do you think Protestants broke away from the Catholic church?

Oh and when you lie I will call you on it and you have. When you mention any part about a Church you are in fact mentioning religion.

Just that the church once performed wedding rituals between men.

There you did it again you mentioned RELIGION


18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Since the link mainly mentioned things that happened in the 10th, 11th and 12th centuries, differentiating between catholic and protestant would be rather ridiculous.

 

[WinterBorn]

You brought up religion, then denied it.

Yes he did then said the Bible could not be used because this subject is not a religous subject

Back to the original topic:

So the two main objections to gay marriage are religious in nature or a claim that marriage has always been between a man and a woman.

Now I have given a link that offers evidence that the catholic church did, in fact, perform same gender marriages.

And the 1st Amendment forbids basing laws solely on religious dogma.



Anything else?? Or will "Liar Liar, Pants on Fire" be your best debate?

 

[koshergrl]

No, the first amendment doesn't forbid passing laws solely on religious dogma.

The objections aren't religious in nature or based on the claim that marriage has always been between a man and a woman.

Why must you argue to points that have never been made? Is it because there is no argument against the truth?

People object to gay marriage because it undermines the one particular relationship upon which the success of our society rests...that relationship is the relationship between a man and a woman, who come together for the sake of creating a family and protecting children they have together.

It has nothing to do with religion. Nobody is arguing "gay marriage can't happen because it's a SIN!" that's true enough, but we are sinful creatures, and we sin within the confines of marriage as well. Homosexuality is no more a sin than, say, refusing to honor your father and mother, or coveting your neighbor's ass.

The marriage has been under attack since the perverts who introduced sex education in our schools started to push for a brave new world, where promiscuity, depravity, and abuse are the hallmarks of our relationships with each other, instead of chastity, honor, and devotion. Marriage has been under attack since the progressive nazis determined children are not worthy or deserving of protection, and in fact have no value whatever except as sexual objects..hence the grooming of children via programs that exalt their sexuality and propagate the lie that #1, children are without value, #2, they are sexual from birth, and #3, man has no control, nor should he be asked to control, his sexual urges.

Homosexuals aren't being denied anything. If they want to participate in a family construct, nobody is preventing them from doing that. If they want to be married, they may do so. But if they don't want to participate, we are not obligated to call them "married" just because they covet the descriptive title...but have no interest in actually participating in the construct. Likewise, it is no violation of their "rights" to refuse to call men women, or nurses "Dr.", just because they want the title.

The act of wanting something does not bestow the right to that thing upon the person who wants it.

 

[WinterBorn]

No, the first amendment doesn't forbid passing laws solely on religious dogma.

The objections aren't religious in nature or based on the claim that marriage has always been between a man and a woman.

Why must you argue to points that have never been made? Is it because there is no argument against the truth?

People object to gay marriage because it undermines the one particular relationship upon which the success of our society rests...that relationship is the relationship between a man and a woman, who come together for the sake of creating a family and protecting children they have together.

It has nothing to do with religion. Nobody is arguing "gay marriage can't happen because it's a SIN!" that's true enough, but we are sinful creatures, and we sin within the confines of marriage as well. Homosexuality is no more a sin than, say, refusing to honor your father and mother, or coveting your neighbor's ass.

The marriage has been under attack since the perverts who introduced sex education in our schools started to push for a brave new world, where promiscuity, depravity, and abuse are the hallmarks of our relationships with each other, instead of chastity, honor, and devotion. Marriage has been under attack since the progressive nazis determined children are not worthy or deserving of protection, and in fact have no value whatever except as sexual objects..hence the grooming of children via programs that exalt their sexuality and propagate the lie that #1, children are without value, #2, they are sexual from birth, and #3, man has no control, nor should he be asked to control, his sexual urges.

Homosexuals aren't being denied anything. If they want to participate in a family construct, nobody is preventing them from doing that. If they want to be married, they may do so. But if they don't want to participate, we are not obligated to call them "married" just because they covet the descriptive title...but have no interest in actually participating in the construct. Likewise, it is no violation of their "rights" to refuse to call men women, or nurses "Dr.", just because they want the title.

The act of wanting something does not bestow the right to that thing upon the person who wants it.

There have been numerous objections based on religious beliefs. In this thread alone there have been several. Be careful, you are treading close to being what you called me.

Society gains from having married couples. These gains are not solely the parenting and safekeeping of children. But even at that, there are numerous gay couples who are adopting children or have children from prior relationships. These couples deserve the same protections and benefits that other straight couples receive. Fir example, if a gay couple adopts a child, only one of them can be the adoptive parent (since they are not married). If something happens to that parent, the other parent has no legal connection to the child. This is certainly not in the best interest of the child.

But marriage extends far beyond children and child raising. And the benefits society recieves from marriage would be the same, whether the couple involved is gay or straight.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I guess this is what passes for debate in your world??

Once again, show me where the bible or religion approves of or advocates selling indulgences and/or covering up for pedophiles? Because the catholic church did those too.

So if I bring up the church selling indulgences, you would claim I brought up religion?

If I complained about how bad the traffic was when the baptist church up the street lets out, would you claim I was bringing up religon?

My post spoke only of historic actions of the catholic church. I did not judge whether they are right or wrong, in accordance with scripture, or even religious in nature. Just that the church once performed wedding rituals between men.

Historical? OK we're going historical so the Bible is the History of the Christian faith.
No what your post did give the opinion of one man who is not a biblical scholar. He's a historian, but is not a BIBLICAL scholar. And as the Catholic church goes they are not protestants and do not speak for them. Why do you think Protestants broke away from the Catholic church?

Oh and when you lie I will call you on it and you have. When you mention any part about a Church you are in fact mentioning religion.

Just that the church once performed wedding rituals between men.

There you did it again you mentioned RELIGION


18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Since the link mainly mentioned things that happened in the 10th, 11th and 12th centuries, differentiating between catholic and protestant would be rather ridiculous.

Your link is a lie it's rewriting history to fit an agenda, advocacy scholarship

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You brought up religion, then denied it.

Yes he did then said the Bible could not be used because this subject is not a religous subject

Back to the original topic:

So the two main objections to gay marriage are religious in nature or a claim that marriage has always been between a man and a woman.

Now I have given a link that offers evidence that the catholic church did, in fact, perform same gender marriages.

And the 1st Amendment forbids basing laws solely on religious dogma.



Anything else?? Or will "Liar Liar, Pants on Fire" be your best debate?

And the 1st Amendment forbids basing laws solely on religious dogma.

Really does it? Where exactly did some of our laws come from? This should be good.

 

[WinterBorn]

Historical? OK we're going historical so the Bible is the History of the Christian faith.
No what your post did give the opinion of one man who is not a biblical scholar. He's a historian, but is not a BIBLICAL scholar. And as the Catholic church goes they are not protestants and do not speak for them. Why do you think Protestants broke away from the Catholic church?

Oh and when you lie I will call you on it and you have. When you mention any part about a Church you are in fact mentioning religion.



There you did it again you mentioned RELIGION


18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Since the link mainly mentioned things that happened in the 10th, 11th and 12th centuries, differentiating between catholic and protestant would be rather ridiculous.

Your link is a lie it's rewriting history to fit an agenda, advocacy scholarship

You claim the link is a lie. I claim it is evidence that marriage has not always been about 1 man and 1 woman.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes he did then said the Bible could not be used because this subject is not a religous subject

Back to the original topic:

So the two main objections to gay marriage are religious in nature or a claim that marriage has always been between a man and a woman.

Now I have given a link that offers evidence that the catholic church did, in fact, perform same gender marriages.

And the 1st Amendment forbids basing laws solely on religious dogma.



Anything else?? Or will "Liar Liar, Pants on Fire" be your best debate?

And the 1st Amendment forbids basing laws solely on religious dogma.

Really does it? Where exactly did some of our laws come from? This should be good.

If laws are made based solely on a religions doctrines, that would, in effect, be mandating a state religion.

Laws have come from numerous places. Some from reasoned discourse. Some from basic common sense.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Since the link mainly mentioned things that happened in the 10th, 11th and 12th centuries, differentiating between catholic and protestant would be rather ridiculous.

Your link is a lie it's rewriting history to fit an agenda, advocacy scholarship

You claim the link is a lie. I claim it is evidence that marriage has not always been about 1 man and 1 woman.

A lie is not evidence. It's just a lie, it's rewriting history to fit the gay agenda.

 

[WinterBorn]

Your link is a lie it's rewriting history to fit an agenda, advocacy scholarship

You claim the link is a lie. I claim it is evidence that marriage has not always been about 1 man and 1 woman.

A lie is not evidence. It's just a lie, it's rewriting history to fit the gay agenda.

So you claim.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Back to the original topic:

So the two main objections to gay marriage are religious in nature or a claim that marriage has always been between a man and a woman.

Now I have given a link that offers evidence that the catholic church did, in fact, perform same gender marriages.

And the 1st Amendment forbids basing laws solely on religious dogma.



Anything else?? Or will "Liar Liar, Pants on Fire" be your best debate?

And the 1st Amendment forbids basing laws solely on religious dogma.

Really does it? Where exactly did some of our laws come from? This should be good.

If laws are made based solely on a religions doctrines, that would, in effect, be mandating a state religion.

Laws have come from numerous places. Some from reasoned discourse. Some from basic common sense.

Is it lawful to steal? Is it lawful to have more than one wife or husband? Is it lawful to have sex with animals? All three are based on religious teachings.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You claim the link is a lie. I claim it is evidence that marriage has not always been about 1 man and 1 woman.

A lie is not evidence. It's just a lie, it's rewriting history to fit the gay agenda.

So you claim.

So I'm factual

 

[WinterBorn]

Really does it? Where exactly did some of our laws come from? This should be good.

If laws are made based solely on a religions doctrines, that would, in effect, be mandating a state religion.

Laws have come from numerous places. Some from reasoned discourse. Some from basic common sense.

Is it lawful to steal? Is it lawful to have more than one wife or husband? Is it lawful to have sex with animals? All three are based on religious teachings.

So there were no laws against stealing outside of religious laws? lol And there are places where it is legal to have more than one wife or husband.

Look, many laws were sent out with religious dogma attached, there is no doubt of that. This does not point to laws being based in religion as much as it points to religion being used to control the masses.

The first complete set of written laws was The Code of Hammurabi. There were laws against stealing, murder, adultery, incest, and (I think) even beastiality. No mention in any history text I have seen has been made of them being based on any religion.

 

[WinterBorn]

A lie is not evidence. It's just a lie, it's rewriting history to fit the gay agenda.

So you claim.

So I'm factual

No, you simply claim it. As I claim it is evidence.

Are you saying that the rituals discussed did not happen? Are you saying they were for a different purpose? Or are you saying the researcher invented the entire thing?