Gay marriage

[sw2]

Based upon my personal religious beliefs I view homosexuality as a sin and do not think gay marriage is right. However, I disagree with the President and those that want to ban gay marriage. I think it is wrong for us to try and impose our own personally held beliefs upon everyone. I think the people of each individual state should vote on whether they want gay marriage or not. And if some states choose gay marriage so be it and of other states choose to ban it then so be it. The same way Adam and Eve in the graden of eden were given the free will to make their own choice of what to eat and what not to eat, each state should be given the free will to choose to allow or ban gay marriage.

 

[freeandfun1]

Based upon my personal religious beliefs I view homosexuality as a sin and do not think gay marriage is right. However, I disagree with the President and those that want to ban gay marriage. I think it is wrong for us to try and impose our own personally held beliefs upon everyone. I think the people of each individual state should vote on whether they want gay marriage or not. And if some states choose gay marriage so be it and of other states choose to ban it then so be it. The same way Adam and Eve in the graden of eden were given the free will to make their own choice of what to eat and what not to eat, each state should be given the free will to choose to allow or ban gay marriage.

i agree but you are missing one important part. If one state recognizes gay marriage, the others must too even if they have banned it. A gay couple from say Nevada, will just move to Mass long enough to get married and then, when they move back to Nevada, Nevada will have to recognize their marriage as being legal. This is how the gays plan on usurping the laws that have already been passed by SEVERAL states.

 

[mattskramer]

Hey, Musicman. Thanks for giving me a better perspective on your views on homosexuals and homosexual activity with comments like If two San Fran Sissy- sco boys are in bed screwing when the earthquake hits, and the roof caves in on them, which one goes to hell first?

Here is a web site that I think that you will enjoy surfing. It should suit your attitude toward homosexuals.

http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/index.html

Check out its internal links too. Here is a dedication to the young man who was practically murdered.

http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/shepard_monument.html

 

[mattskramer]

Hey [NewGuy]. Check these out:

The following proposal is to incorporate Biblical restrictions on marriage into our Christian nation's otherwise embarrassingly flawed and secular Constitution:

1. No state may sanction marriage between people of the same gender.

2. No state may sanction marriage between people of different races. (Numbers 25:6-8; 36:3-9; Deuteronomy 7:3; 1 Kings 11:2; Ezra 9:2; Nehemiah 13:25-27)

3. No state may sanction marriage between a Christian and non-Christian. (2 Corinthians 6:14-17; 2 John 1:9-11)

4. No state may sanction marriage between a man and a woman who was married previously but has since divorced (Matthew 5:32), and the respective parties of any such existing marriages shall be charged with adultery. (Matthew 19:9)


5. No state may sanction marriage involving a widow, except to require her to marry her brother-in-law. (Deuteronomy 25:5-10) All other widows are to refrain from intimacy and pleasure for the remainder of their natural lives. (1 Timothy 5:5-15)


6. No state may sanction marriage between a man and any woman unwilling to promise in her wedding vows to obey and submit to her husband. (1 Corinthians 11:3; Ephesians 5:22-24; Colossians 3:18; 1 Timothy 2:11-12; Titus 2:3,5; 1 Peter 3:1)


7. No state may sanction marriage involving a woman in which the wedding ceremony is to occur during her menstrual cycle unless the prospective spouses agree to refrain from intimate relations until the woman's period has terminated. (Leviticus 18:19; 20:18; Ezekiel 18:5-6)


8. No state may sanction marriage between a minister and any woman other than a virgin. (Leviticus 21:13-14)


9. No state may sanction marriage involving any rapist other than to require him to wed his victim before their required mutual execution, unless the victim cried out during the assault, in which case only the man shall be given the death penalty. (Deuteronomy 22:23-29)


10. No state may sanction marriage involving a man who has had sexual thoughts about a woman other than the one he intends to marry. (Matthew 5:2)


11. No state may sanction marriage between a man and an aggressive or contentious woman. (Proverbs 21:9, 21:19, 25:24; 27:15)

Don't you think that if we are to have a constitutional amendment defining marriage that the 11 restrictions above should be included? After all, if we are to define marriage based on the Bible, we better includes the above instruction too.

 

[musicman]

Which is sicker - my off-color joke about homosexuals, or your very real support for the legitimization of their behavior?

Oh, well - if I haven't accomplished anything else, I've gotten you to read, comprehend, and respond to the actual content of one of my posts. Yippee!

 

[NewGuy]

Hey [NewGuy]. Check these out:

The following proposal is to incorporate Biblical restrictions on marriage into our Christian nation's otherwise embarrassingly flawed and secular Constitution:

The Constitution is not flawed.

How about proving it is?

You don't seem to be able to prove any other logical point except by reason of "mat's book says so", so lets see you back up this one.

You like to let your mouth write checks your brain can't back up.

Don't you think that if we are to have a constitutional amendment defining marriage that the 11 restrictions above should be included? After all, if we are to define marriage based on the Bible, we better includes the above instruction too.

I never said we should have the Amendment, mat.

I just know that your entire thought process is so illogical and screwed it would take thousands of people with the best spin doctors in the universe, and mass media, generations to fool the masses into believing such a thing.

Oh....wait.....that IS the case, isn't it?

I am looking forward to you proving the Constitution flawed as you can't prove anything else.......except MY POINTS.

By refusing to claim the Bible invalid, and admitting you CANT, you have admitted it also valid as a moral and ethical code.

To do so means 2 things:

1. If not invalid, it must be what it claims otherwise it loses all integrity and becomes a book of lies -which serves no purpose as an ethical code.

2. If it IS what it claims, it IS the UNERRANT WORD OF GOD, and you just fell upon your face again.

Thanks, mat.

I love watching you fence sit and prove my points with your own statements.

It saves me the work.

 

[OCA]

Hey, Musicman. Thanks for giving me a better perspective on your views on homosexuals and homosexual activity with comments like If two San Fran Sissy- sco boys are in bed screwing when the earthquake hits, and the roof caves in on them, which one goes to hell first?

Here is a web site that I think that you will enjoy surfing. It should suit your attitude toward homosexuals.

http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/index.html

Check out its internal links too. Here is a dedication to the young man who was practically murdered.

http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/shepard_monument.html

Well I don't know if God actually hates fags but he sure as hell don't condone their ongoing practice of their vile, repugnant and abnormal bahavior, especially when they know its wrong. Also i'd bet the house that Mr. Shepard is shoveling coals into Satan's furnace right about now, God says it matters if you've repented before you die not how you die.

But thanks for advertising one of my favorite websites, truth hurts sometimes.

 

[Big D]

But thanks for advertising one of my favorite websites, truth hurts sometimes.

That is one of your favorite websites?

You one sick monkey.

 

[OCA]

That is one of your favorite websites?

You one sick monkey.

]

I'd imagine you wouldn't like that site seeing as how you are a cocksucker it might be a little offensive to you.

 

[Big D]

]

I'd imagine you wouldn't like that site seeing as how you are a cocksucker it might be a little offensive to you.

The site is interesting, but you did not say you just liked the site you said "thanks for advertising one of my favorite websites" and thats what makes you a sick monkey.

As far as the rest of what you wrote, it makes you sound like your gay.

 

[OCA]

The site is interesting, but you did not say you just liked the site you said "thanks for advertising one of my favorite websites" and thats what makes you a sick monkey.

As far as the rest of what you wrote, it makes you sound like your gay.

I don't give two shits what you're low end trailer trash ass thinks about what I think about a website, I only care about opinions from people with credibility or don't you realize you have zero in that department?

As for the sounding gay you need to come up with better comebacks, you've been taking lessons from RWA I see, its not helping you. It is you that I said was a cocksucker, get it? That is you, in fact I bet you like to be fisted in the ass out there in the woods by the local Mexicans seeing as how Idaho is going to be an official Mexican state soon. Better brush up on your Spanish and learn to say no mas!

 

[Big D]

I don't give two shits what you're low end trailer trash ass thinks about what I think about a website, I only care about opinions from people with credibility or don't you realize you have zero in that department?

As for the sounding gay you need to come up with better comebacks, you've been taking lessons from RWA I see, its not helping you. It is you that I said was a cocksucker, get it? That is you, in fact I bet you like to be fisted in the ass out there in the woods by the local Mexicans seeing as how Idaho is going to be an official Mexican state soon. Better brush up on your Spanish and learn to say no mas!

What a emotional Beaaaatch

 

[OCA]

What a emotional Beaaaatch

Is that ebonics?

What "an"(proper word there) emotional, guess that must have been 10th grade English so you didn't get that class and then that last word is too ghetto for me to understand.

 

[Big D]

Is that ebonics?

What "an"(proper word there) emotional, guess that must have been 10th grade English so you didn't get that class and then that last word is too ghetto for me to understand.

I know monkeybonics, just call me Dr Dolittle, cuz Izz Bzz ables 2 tawk 2 D animals.

 

[OCA]

I know monkeybonics, just call me Dr Dolittle, cuz Izz Bzz ables 2 tawk 2 D animals.

Guess you picked that up when you were courting brides back when, or maybe from male suitors who pass by the house?

 

[Big D]

Guess you picked that up when you were courting brides back when, or maybe from male suitors who pass by the house?

Shoot monkey boy you live in the capital of monkeyland, Washington D.C. Sounds like your giving us some insight into your life. Does your wife still entertain the monkeymen?

 

[NewGuy]

Shoot monkey boy you live in the capital of monkeyland, Washington D.C. Sounds like your giving us some insight into your life. Does your wife still entertain the monkeymen?

Last I checked, racial comments like this were looked down upon by administration.

I get threatened to get my threads closed for mentioning the role of the Bible in history, and Big-D is allowed to slur blacks forever.

 

[OCA]

Last I checked, racial comments like this were looked down upon by administration.

I get threatened to get my threads closed for mentioning the role of the Bible in history, and Big-D is allowed to slur blacks forever.

You know i'd get pissed off about him insinuating that my wife was fucking black guys but the fucking mods won't do shit about it. Lets face it Big D runs this board. This is only like the 5th time this lowlife piece of trash has done this, I mean really what use does Big D have for this board? Why has he not been banned already? Interesting.

 

[mattskramer]

I never said we should have the Amendment, mat.

Okay. Okay. I though that you were opposed to gay marriage (and favored a constitutional amendment against gay marriage) because the Bible opposes gay marriage. With so many people here with so many different silly reasons against gay marriage it is difficult for me to link the person with his erroneous reason. Perhaps my post would have been better suited for someone else. Please remind me. What is your reason why gays should not be allowed to get married?

I am looking forward to you proving the Constitution flawed...

You never learn, do you? I never said that the Constitution was/is flawed. Stop trying to put words onto my mouth.

By refusing to claim the Bible invalid, and admitting you CANT, you have admitted it also valid as a moral and ethical code.

Not only do you try to put words into my mouth. You change my statements. I said that I can't prove that the Bible is not the word of God. I didn't say anything about whether or not the Bible is valid. Yet, I might even say that I can't prove that the Bible is invalid. By doing so, I am not saying that the Bible is valid or invalid. I am only saying that I can't prove that it is invalid. It may very well be invalid though I am not skilled enough to prove it so. You are declaring that it is valid. Therefore it is your responsibility to prove that it is valid.

By the way, just because some (or even most) of a book is invalid does not mean that the entire book is invalid. I can write a book. I can write much good and valid advice and instruction within the book, but I might also write some stuff, within the book, that might not be valid. I might include some of my own personal biases. I may even write, within the book, a false and self-serving claim, that it is the word of God. The Bible has some good advice in it. It also has some repressive and unnecessary, if not bad, advice. It also says that it is the word of God. I agree with some of the stuff within the Bible. I disagree with other stuff within the Bible. To use an old but appropriate cliche: Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

[NewGuy]

I never said we should have the Amendment, mat.
With so many people here with so many different silly reasons against gay marriage it is difficult for me to link the person with his erroneous reason.

My erroneous reason?

Mat, you are full of anger when proven wrong.

I remember when you first came to the board. You thought you had 2 iq points to rub together.

My reason is rock solid. I guess with all of that education, it doesn't help you read the thread we are in.

I am looking forward to you proving the Constitution flawed...

You never learn, do you? I never said that the Constitution was/is flawed. Stop trying to put words onto my mouth.

I don't know what you prefer in your mouth, but I refuse to put ANYTHING there.

Here is your statement from your previous post:

Hey [NewGuy]. Check these out:

The following proposal is to incorporate Biblical restrictions on marriage into our Christian nation's otherwise embarrassingly flawed and secular Constitution:

Educated are we mat? You don't even know what you are talking about. If you halfway understood your argument instead of spewing recycled propaganda, you might get somewhere.

By refusing to claim the Bible invalid, and admitting you CANT, you have admitted it also valid as a moral and ethical code.

Not only do you try to put words into my mouth. You change my statements. I said that I can't prove that the Bible is not the word of God. I didn't say anything about whether or not the Bible is valid. Yet, I might even say that I can't prove that the Bible is invalid. By doing so, I am not saying that the Bible is valid or invalid. I am only saying that I can't prove that it is invalid.

Here we go again. Your previous post:

I never said that the Bible is not a moral standard. On the contrary, it is one of many books that profess a moral standard. There are books that profess a moral code that do not claim to be the word of God or that God even exists.

How many lies can you create in one thread?

It may very well be invalid though I am not skilled enough to prove it so. You are declaring that it is valid. Therefore it is your responsibility to prove that it is valid.

Read your posts. You only have one thing you can prove:

That mats can be on 2 sides of the issue at the same time and prove nothing.

Nickname: matsKERRY

By the way, just because some (or even most) of a book is invalid does not mean that the entire book is invalid. I can write a book. I can write much good and valid advice and instruction within the book, but I might also write some stuff, within the book, that might not be valid. I might include some of my own personal biases. I may even write, within the book, a false and self-serving claim, that it is the word of God. The Bible has some good advice in it. It also has some repressive and unnecessary, if not bad, advice. It also says that it is the word of God. I agree with some of the stuff within the Bible. I disagree with other stuff within the Bible. To use an old but appropriate cliche: Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

That is stupid logic. If the book claims its self divine and then makes any other claim, it is either credible or it isn't. You have to accept the whole thing or you can't.

That is why you have such a hard time mat. You can't take a stand on anything and prove anything because you don't believe anything.

You like to pick and choose to believe in leprechauns and clovers but not Irish men. -and then deny it.

The sad part is you don't even care.