Wow - for The Pro-Lifers

[Cigar]

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af203/middlefingermom/0a0a0MFM-FetusGayRights.jpg

Well ... will they?

[Chris]

Yes.

[Cigar]

Yes.

I guess we'll just have to take your word on that ... after the autopsy :laugh:

http://img.allvoices.com/thumbs/image/609/609/97131493-rembrandt-republican-autopsy.jpg

[Mister D]

We are going to know more and more about how a fetus will develop and what traits it will possess. Now I'm not sure how pro-life and gays are related but we are touching on an interesting question: are we comfortable with fetuses being aborted because they are gay or possess some other undesireable trait?

[Chris]

I guess we'll just have to take your word on that ...

You asked and I answered sincerely for myself. While I won't pretend to speak for others, I do believe it's not being gay by nature or nurture that some are against as sinful but choosing to act upon it--hate the sin not the sinner is the way I hear it expressed.

[Micketto]

Show me a gay fetus, and I'll support your drug habit for the entirety of your lonely life.

[Cigar]

You asked and I answered sincerely for myself. While I won't pretend to speak for others, I do believe it's not being gay by nature or nurture that some are against as sinful but choosing to act upon it--hate the sin not the sinner is the way I hear it expressed.

We'll know for sure by their Votes and Actions :wink:

[Mainecoons]

I could care less if gays act on their sexuality as long as they keep it out of my face and quit trying to shove it down my throat.

[Chloe]

I could care less if gays act on their sexuality as long as they keep it out of my face and quit trying to shove it down my throat.

I'm just curious, but what do you consider to be "in your face"? Would you consider two gay men or two lesbians holding hands in a park to be in your face? or like a quick kiss in a movie theater?

[Cigar]

:happy1:

[patrickt]

Is killing female fetuses a part of the liberal War on Women?

[Mister D]

Is killing female fetuses a part of the liberal War on Women?

Good question. Infanticide is a lot more common than some of you might think. Most of the fetuses abortd are female. So are we comfortable with that?

[Micketto]

Good question. Infanticide is a lot more common than some of you might think. Most of the fetuses abortd are female. So are we comfortable with that?

If they were going to grow into the version of "female" we see whining on this board all the time?

I am perfectly fine with it.

[Dr. Who]

If they were going to grow into the version of "female" we see whining on this board all the time?

I am perfectly fine with it.Eugenics anyone?

[Peter1469]

I'm just curious, but what do you consider to be "in your face"? Would you consider two gay men or two lesbians holding hands in a park to be in your face? or like a quick kiss in a movie theater?

no

[Chris]

Eugenics anyone?

That was a progressive movement early last century that Hitler borrowed. Let's not go there again. Santayana would have something to say about that.

[TheInternet]

I'm just curious, but what do you consider to be "in your face"? Would you consider two gay men or two lesbians holding hands in a park to be in your face? or like a quick kiss in a movie theater?

Men, yes.
Ugly lesbians, yes.
Hot lesbians, no.

:)

In seriousness, I don't consider any of that "in my face". What I do consider "in my face" is when they go out of their way to be flamboyant, and out of their way to make sure people notice they're gay. That shit drives me nuts.

Here's another issue I have with the gay rights movement: their parades couldn't do more to drive people away from supporting them if they tried. They're telling people they're human just like everyone else, and deserve the same rights, but when you do it dressed up in some of the silly flamboyant shit they wear, its hard to take them seriously. Instead of people thinking "wow, these are normal people just like me", the thoughts are more like "these assholes need to fuck off back to whatever planet they came from".

This shit is not helping:
2990
2991
2992

Search google images for "gay parade", to see plenty more. I'm not sure there's a single picture that I'd be willing to let a child see.

The social right's perception is they are immoral wierdo people who their kids should not be exposed to. Then, the LGBT community has their "parades" and prove all the negative stereotypes true, and more.

[Mister D]

Actually, I think many gays would agree with you.

[TheInternet]

Actually, I think many gays would agree with you.

They need to make their voices loud and clear. Unfortunately, its easy for their voices to get drowned out bc the wierdos are given a huge platform to shout from.

[Mister D]

They need to make their voices loud and clear. Unfortunately, its easy for their voices to get drowned out bc the wierdos are given a huge platform to shout from.

The squeaky wheel gets the oil. Of course you are right that such displays do nothing positive for the image of gays so they should certainly feel motivated to speak up. Sadly, it only alienates folks who might be more sympathetic.

[zelmo1234]

First I only konw of one culture that deisres the death of people that are gay and that is the Islamic nations.

Second holding hands and a quick peck is not in your face, trying to make me alther my beliefs to accept theirs or asking me to accept and aggree with thier lifestyle, or give them special treatment is what bothers me!

For example we are looking for gay marrage so they can have all of the benifits of married people but what if I want to marry someone say my brother because he has lost his job and I want him to have my insurance benifits. Would you discriminate against me even though it was not a sexual relations ship and if so why?

Also I think you need to take it easy on Cigar. You see radical liberals have always thought that killing off masses of people to promote their agenda was something to be considered. So it would be hard for him to understand that even though conservatives do not approve of the gay lifestyle, they have no desire to kill them. this would be a forgien thought to most liberals.

[Dr. Who]

That was a progressive movement early last century that Hitler borrowed. Let's not go there again. Santayana would have something to say about that.

It seemed to be the direction that some would like to take.

[jillian]

First I only konw of one culture that deisres the death of people that are gay and that is the Islamic nations.

some, not all.

some nice 'christians' beat matthew shepard to death for being gay, too.


Second holding hands and a quick peck is not in your face, trying to make me alther my beliefs to accept theirs or asking me to accept and aggree with thier lifestyle, or give them special treatment is what bothers me!

treating them equally is NOT giving them special treatment. treating them as unequal is disparate treatment.


For example we are looking for gay marrage so they can have all of the benifits of married people but what if I want to marry someone say my brother because he has lost his job and I want him to have my insurance benifits. Would you discriminate against me even though it was not a sexual relations ship and if so why?[/quote

you're being silly.

[quote]Also I think you need to take it easy on Cigar. You see radical liberals have always thought that killing off masses of people to promote their agenda was something to be considered. So it would be hard for him to understand that even though conservatives do not approve of the gay lifestyle, they have no desire to kill them. this would be a forgien thought to most liberals.

what a bunch of garbage....

[zelmo1234]

some, not all.
some nice 'christians' beat matthew shepard to death for being gay, too

treating them equally is NOT giving them special treatment. treating them as unequal is disparate treatment.

[quote]For example we are looking for gay marrage so they can have all of the benifits of married people but what if I want to marry someone say my brother because he has lost his job and I want him to have my insurance benifits. Would you discriminate against me even though it was not a sexual relations ship and if so why?[/quote

you're being silly.

what a bunch of garbage....

You are correct that are some Islamic nations that do not kill gay people.

YES there is evil in all religions, but Matthew was a very Isolated action and I beleive that those that did it recieved the death penalty!

If you are acting Religiously in the Christian, Jewish and Islamic faiths for that matter the Gay lifestyle is a sin and therfor e God would not sanction the marrage.

Why is it silly are you saying it is not possibe for a person to love thier Brother and why would you discriminate agains his right to have the benifits of a family membersis insurance, you are discriminating againt them are you not?

And for the last that is easy. in the History of the world here is a list of the kindness and tolerance of liberals toward those that disagree with them.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3016030/posts million upon million killed or left to die for thier political beliefs? NOT SILLY to ME

[TheInternet]

First I only konw of one culture that deisres the death of people that are gay and that is the Islamic nations.

Second holding hands and a quick peck is not in your face, trying to make me alther my beliefs to accept theirs or asking me to accept and aggree with thier lifestyle, or give them special treatment is what bothers me!

For example we are looking for gay marrage so they can have all of the benifits of married people but what if I want to marry someone say my brother because he has lost his job and I want him to have my insurance benifits. Would you discriminate against me even though it was not a sexual relations ship and if so why?

Also I think you need to take it easy on Cigar. You see radical liberals have always thought that killing off masses of people to promote their agenda was something to be considered. So it would be hard for him to understand that even though conservatives do not approve of the gay lifestyle, they have no desire to kill them. this would be a forgien thought to most liberals.

You actually bring up a valid point that I saw discussed somewhere else recently: legality of incest.

I think the largest argument against it is genetic problems passed onto kids. But our culture and system of laws allow other people with issues to get married. Should being HIV positive make it illegal to get married, bc your kids will have HIV? What about people with genetic illnesses? Even if you're not swayed by that rebuttal, what about same sex siblings? What's the argument against two brothers or two sisters living their lives together if they so choose?

[zelmo1234]

You actually bring up a valid point that I saw discussed somewhere else recently: legality of incest.

I think the largest argument against it is genetic problems passed onto kids. But our culture and system of laws allow other people with issues to get married. Should being HIV positive make it so you can't get married, bc your kids will have HIV? What about people with other genetic illnesses? Even if you're not swayed by that rebuttal, what about same sex siblings? What's the argument against two brothers or two sisters living their lives together if they so choose?

That is why I chose Brother. Why would liberal discrimanate against this,, can they say that it is different than being Gay? After all they tell us that people that are gay can't help who they fall in love with!

No for the record I wold be against this as I am against Gay marrage for the same reson, but I find it impossible to support gay marrage and not being a pedifile or incest?

[Dr. Who]

You actually bring up a valid point that I saw discussed somewhere else recently: legality of incest.

I think the largest argument against it is genetic problems passed onto kids. But our culture and system of laws allow other people with issues to get married. Should being HIV positive make it illegal to get married, bc your kids will have HIV? What about people with genetic illnesses? Even if you're not swayed by that rebuttal, what about same sex siblings? What's the argument against two brothers or two sisters living their lives together if they so choose? In the case of the latter, there should be none as the injunction against incest relates to procreation. Historically there was no injunction against incest, however the farmers knew what the aristocracy didn't and eventually it became apparent in royal families that inbreeding resulted in genetic deterioration. Where there can be no possibility of procreation, there really should be no injunction.

[TheInternet]

That is why I chose Brother. Why would liberal discrimanate against this,, can they say that it is different than being Gay? After all they tell us that people that are gay can't help who they fall in love with!

No for the record I wold be against this as I am against Gay marrage for the same reson, but I find it impossible to support gay marrage and not being a pedifile or incest?

Pedophilia is a completely different subject. Children are not considered mature enough to make major decisions on their own. Those decisions include having sex with people older than them.

[TheInternet]

In the case of the latter, there should be none as the injunction against incest relates to procreation. Historically there was no injunction against incest, however the farmers knew what the aristocracy didn't and eventually it became apparent in royal families that inbreeding resulted in genetic deterioration. Where there can be no possibility of procreation, there really should be no injunction.

Agreed. Thanks for the history. Interesting tidbits I didn't know.

Whats your take on the first portion of my post? Why do we allow those with deformities to marry, but not allow heterosexual incestuous relationships?

[zelmo1234]

Pedophilia is a completely different subject. Children are not considered mature enough to make major decisions on their own. Those decisions include having sex with people older than them.

For the record again I am totaly on your side, and have a rather harsh opnion of what should be removed from pedifiles as they are less than human in my book.

but if you are going to make the argument that people can't help who they fall in love with? Can you really say that a pedofile had a choice in the matter? And if you say that NO in this case it is a choice that they act on this urge, then is not Incest, and Homosexuality the same?

[jillian]

For the record again I am totaly on your side, and have a rather harsh opnion of what should be removed from pedifiles as they are less than human in my book.

but if you are going to make the argument that people can't help who they fall in love with? Can you really say that a pedofile had a choice in the matter? And if you say that NO in this case it is a choice that they act on this urge, then is not Incest, and Homosexuality the same?

comparing pedophiles with consenting adults is disgusting.

people who victimize children are not engaging in a mutually beneficial consensual relationship.

religious extremists love making those false arguments, though.

[TheInternet]

For the record again I am totaly on your side, and have a rather harsh opnion of what should be removed from pedifiles as they are less than human in my book.

but if you are going to make the argument that people can't help who they fall in love with? Can you really say that a pedofile had a choice in the matter? And if you say that NO in this case it is a choice that they act on this urge, then is not Incest, and Homosexuality the same?

I don't think we are on the same side of this issue. I support gay marriage.

People have no choice who they fall in love with - true. They do have a choice in acting on those emotions. A 10 year old girl isn't mature enough to "be in love with" the 50 year old creep down the street. As a society, we protect that child from a stupid decision. It's the same reason we put age restrictions on driving cars, or consuming alcohol.

[TheInternet]

comparing pedophiles with consenting adults is disgusting.

people who victimize children are not engaging in a mutually beneficial consensual relationship.

religious extremists love making those false arguments, though.

Stop agreeing with me!! Something bad is going to happen... Like a sinkhole is going to open up under my home. Lol. You actually put it better than I could talking about mutual benefits. That's kinda what I was looking for.

[jillian]

Stop agreeing with me!! Something bad is going to happen... Like a sinkhole is going to open up under my home. Lol. You actually put it better than I could talking about mutual benefits. That's kinda what I was looking for.

when you aren't being wacky, in case you haven't noticed, we agree on many things.

but you like being combative...

and thank you. lol.

[TheInternet]

when you aren't being wacky, in case you haven't noticed, we agree on many things.

but you like being combative...

and thank you. lol.

I like being wacky. Our moment is over. The war will commence, and you will be defeated!

:)

[jillian]

I like being wacky. Our moment is over. The war will commence, and you will be defeated!

:)


you shall be denied.

[zelmo1234]

I don't think we are on the same side of this issue. I support gay marriage.

People have no choice who they fall in love with - true. They do have a choice in acting on those emotions. A 10 year old girl isn't mature enough to "be in love with" the 50 year old creep down the street. As a society, we protect that child from a stupid decision. It's the same reason we put age restrictions on driving cars, or consuming alcohol.

Ok incest with those over 18 then should the be able to get married, and if not whay would you discriminate against them!

You see you are making a moral judgement. So you are all for making moral judgements, Your line on what is moreal is just different than mine..

So if you draw the line at pedifiles, then you are intolerant and discriminate against them as after all they can't help who the fall in love with.

I don't think that there is any reason that Gay people need to be married. I think I would support Civil unions but to me marrage is a religious union, I do not think that they should not be allowed to see thier partners and provide insurance ect. but marrage is in my opnion not something that is morally right.

You make the same moral judgement just a little farther to the left! So why is your moral judgement superior to mine???? and if so then are you discriminating and intolerant of me?

[Polt]

Liberals ask the darndest (dumbest) questions. Protecting an innocent life has nothing to with protecting immoral or criminal behavior.

[TheInternet]

Ok incest with those over 18 then should the be able to get married, and if not whay would you discriminate against them!



Then we agree. I think two consenting individuals should be able to get married. I don't care if two siblings want to marry.




You see you are making a moral judgement. So you are all for making moral judgements, Your line on what is moreal is just different than mine..

So if you draw the line at pedifiles, then you are intolerant and discriminate against them as after all they can't help who the fall in love with.

I don't think that there is any reason that Gay people need to be married. I think I would support Civil unions but to me marrage is a religious union, I do not think that they should not be allowed to see thier partners and provide insurance ect. but marrage is in my opnion not something that is morally right.

You make the same moral judgement just a little farther to the left! So why is your moral judgement superior to mine???? and if so then are you discriminating and intolerant of me?

Im not discriminating against pedophiles. I'm protecting innocent children.

So, your problem is with the use of "marriage" in the biblical sense being applied to gay couples, but you don't have a problem with them having access to the same benefits marriage has for straight couples. Am I correct in saying that you believe in order to use the term "marriage", the couple should have to fulfil the requirements as laid out by the bible, one of which is that the marriage is a partnership between a man and a woman?

[zelmo1234]

^^^^^

Yes for me, Marrage is defined biblically as between a man and a women and I beleive that the world marrage should be reserved for that union!

I am not oppose though to having a church marrage and a state union and if people want the benifits of a Union they need that marrage license and let the Churches decide if they want to marry people before God.

Some churches would choose to do this and some people would choose to get married in a church and not file the civil union marrage license?

To me that would be the ultimate freedom? would it not?

[jillian]

Then we agree. I think two consenting individuals should be able to get married. I don't care if two siblings want to marry.



Im not discriminating against pedophiles. I'm protecting innocent children.

So, your problem is with the use of "marriage" in the biblical sense being applied to gay couples, but you don't have a problem with them having access to the same benefits marriage has for straight couples. Am I correct in saying that you believe in order to use the term "marriage", the couple should have to fulfil the requirements as laid out by the bible, one of which is that the marriage is a partnership between a man and a woman?

marriage in the bible wasn't necessarily between one man and one woman. there were an awful lot of polygamists in the bible... and an awful lot of concubines.

what their religious view is, isn't really relevant to our laws. the right to perform a marriage is a right conferred by the state. now, i don't believe any religious institution should be allowed to peform a marriage it doesn't wish to perform, but religious institutions do not set the laws for marriage. those are governed by the states.....

they just can't treat people disparately based on suspect classifications.

and tomorrow or monday, we'll know more about how this Court feels about this issue.

[TheInternet]

^^^^^

Yes for me, Marrage is defined biblically as between a man and a women and I beleive that the world marrage should be reserved for that union!

I am not oppose though to having a church marrage and a state union and if people want the benifits of a Union they need that marrage license and let the Churches decide if they want to marry people before God.

Some churches would choose to do this and some people would choose to get married in a church and not file the civil union marrage license?

To me that would be the ultimate freedom? would it not?

Do you also support marriage of multiple partners as described in the old testament?

Do you also support the bibles ban on terminating a marriage? Do you think remarrying is committing adultery?

[roadmaster]

The ones asking don't understand the Bible. Why bother to answer.

[jillian]

The ones asking don't understand the Bible. Why bother to answer.

whose bible?

[TheInternet]

The ones asking don't understand the Bible. Why bother to answer.

What do I not understand?

[zelmo1234]

Do you also support marriage of multiple partners as described in the old testament?

Do you also support the bibles ban on terminating a marriage? Do you think remarrying is committing adultery?

I think that in Matthew, you can find justification that Jesus defined marrage between one man and one women. So while there are several places in the old testiment where we can fine multiple wives,,, I do feel it is wrong. But if 20 women choose to marry the same man and they do it of free will???? who are you to say that it is wrong???? and are you discriminating against those women and that man????

I can also find only one reason that the bible says that Divorce is acceptable and that is in the case of adultry. Divorce for any other reason and if the person gets remaried is in fact adultry as defined by the bible! But what we are talking about is in fact sin, is it not?

You were talking about protecting Children.... Well we had the courts rule that a child could go inot a pharmacy and without parental concent recieve the morning after pill? and then you tell me that Children are not old enough to make the decission to have sex. As in peidfilia???? which one is it?

If I wre to tell you that I was without sin, would you beleive me????? Of course not!

The point that I was trying to make is that we all have that line in the sand where we say this in not moral?

Thereare those that talk about homosexuality in nature between animals wherew you will see a male mount a male and a female ount a female. But in nature this is to assert domanance over the other! Shoe then homosexuality in humans be considered rape then???? Of course not!

I think that I am failing to get my point across.

[zelmo1234]

What do I not understand?

Do you understand that all sin is the same and all sin save the denial of the holy ghost can be forgiven??

And that just becasue someone sins does not meand that I ahve to hate them or treat them poorly?

[TheInternet]

I think that in Matthew, you can find justification that Jesus defined marrage between one man and one women. So while there are several places in the old testiment where we can fine multiple wives,,, I do feel it is wrong. But if 20 women choose to marry the same man and they do it of free will???? who are you to say that it is wrong???? and are you discriminating against those women and that man????

I can also find only one reason that the bible says that Divorce is acceptable and that is in the case of adultry. Divorce for any other reason and if the person gets remaried is in fact adultry as defined by the bible! But what we are talking about is in fact sin, is it not?

You were talking about protecting Children.... Well we had the courts rule that a child could go inot a pharmacy and without parental concent recieve the morning after pill? and then you tell me that Children are not old enough to make the decission to have sex. As in peidfilia???? which one is it?

If I wre to tell you that I was without sin, would you beleive me????? Of course not!

The point that I was trying to make is that we all have that line in the sand where we say this in not moral?

Thereare those that talk about homosexuality in nature between animals wherew you will see a male mount a male and a female ount a female. But in nature this is to assert domanance over the other! Shoe then homosexuality in humans be considered rape then???? Of course not!

I think that I am failing to get my point across.

So, you are ok with polygamy?

Since you want the law to only allow the bible's version of marriage, would you also support legal enforcement of the bible's ban on divorce?

[TheInternet]

Do you understand that all sin is the same and all sin save the denial of the holy ghost can be forgiven??

And that just becasue someone sins does not meand that I ahve to hate them or treat them poorly?

I understand both points.

[TheInternet]

I don't know much abut the morning after pill case. I don't really know how I feel about it.

Alcohol and cigs are banned bc they are harmful. The morning after pill is not harmful. So, on those grounds, there's no reason to ban selling them to kids. A business owner is allowed to conduct business to people of any age. Kids can make decisions to purchase items like candy bars, and, now, the morning after pill.

The problem comes when you make the case that the morning after pill is allowing the kid to engage in a dangerous behavior. I think to make that leap, you would have to provide statistical evidence that children are more likely to get laid if they have access to that pill. Then, you could make the argument that it's dangerous to kids. I've not seen evidence one way or the other, or any other view points, so I can't give my opinion on it,

[zelmo1234]

So, you are ok with polygamy?

Since you want the law to only allow the bible's version of marriage, would you also support legal enforcement of the bible's ban on divorce?

So you would discriminate against consenting adults that want to take part in polygamy willingly,, that is discrimination!

You are making a moral judgement.

But I being a Christian, beleive in the new testament in which jesus defines marrage between a one man and one women!


I also think that the bible does define what is a biblical divorce.... but it does not prevent other divorces.... it just says that those that are not biblically divorced comit adultry? as sin! And I agree with that.. though I do beoevie that if divorce was a little harder, the world would be a better place!

I also beleive that if the Men of this country would look at what God says about Marrage, that Man will leave his family and cling to his wife forsaking all others. and that he will provide for her in sickness and in health, and that he would be willing to lay down his life for her? That world would be a better place.

These are my beleifs? are you tolerant of my beliefs? or not?

[zelmo1234]

I don't know much abut the morning after pill case. I don't really know how I feel about it.

Alcohol and cigs are banned bc they are harmful. The morning after pill is not harmful. So, on those grounds, there's no reason to ban selling them to kids. A business owner is allowed to conduct business to people of any age. Kids can make decisions to purchase items like candy bars, and, now, the morning after pill.

The problem comes when you make the case that the morning after pill is allowing the kid to engage in a dangerous behavior. I think to make that leap, you would have to provide statistical evidence that children are more likely to get laid if they have access to that pill. Then, you could make the argument that it's dangerous to kids. I've not seen evidence one way or the other, or any other view points, so I can't give my opinion on it,

Earlier you said that you were protecting Children that did not have the intelect to choose to have sexual relations and now you are saying that they can choose to have sexual relations? Which one is it ?

Because if they can in fact choose to ahve sexual relations which could result in STD and even death from them? that is dangerous behavior and the morning after pill is fo course not needed if they are not ahving sex?

But if you decide that they do in fact have the ability to choose to have sexm then you would have to say thte being a pedifile if the sex was consentual is a choice and you would be discriminating against those pedifiles by making it illegal?

So you see in fact we all have our lines of which we beleive what is moral and not moral! to judge others for their beleif is intolerant! dont' you think!

[TheInternet]

So you would discriminate against consenting adults that want to take part in polygamy willingly,, that is discrimination!

You are making a moral judgement.

But I being a Christian, beleive in the new testament in which jesus defines marrage between a one man and one women!


I also think that the bible does define what is a biblical divorce.... but it does not prevent other divorces.... it just says that those that are not biblically divorced comit adultry? as sin! And I agree with that.. though I do beoevie that if divorce was a little harder, the world would be a better place!

I also beleive that if the Men of this country would look at what God says about Marrage, that Man will leave his family and cling to his wife forsaking all others. and that he will provide for her in sickness and in health, and that he would be willing to lay down his life for her? That world would be a better place.

These are my beleifs? are you tolerant of my beliefs? or not?

Im fine with polygamy. I'm trying to find out your position on the issue.

The bible prohibits divorce.

Are you ok with legally enforcing that component of marriage? I'd like an answer total question. If you believe that legally, marriage should be protected to the biblical definition, are you in favor of enforcing the other components of marriage? Are you in favor of enforcing that marriage last "til death do us part"?

[TheInternet]

Earlier you said that you were protecting Children that did not have the intelect to choose to have sexual relations and now you are saying that they can choose to have sexual relations? Which one is it ?

Because if they can in fact choose to ahve sexual relations which could result in STD and even death from them? that is dangerous behavior and the morning after pill is fo course not needed if they are not ahving sex?

But if you decide that they do in fact have the ability to choose to have sexm then you would have to say thte being a pedifile if the sex was consentual is a choice and you would be discriminating against those pedifiles by making it illegal?

So you see in fact we all have our lines of which we beleive what is moral and not moral! to judge others for their beleif is intolerant! dont' you think!

I said children are not mature enough to have sex with adults. That is a different issue entirely than having sex with their peers, and is beyond the scope of this conversation.

[zelmo1234]

I said children are not mature enough to have sex with adults. That is a different issue entirely than having sex with their peers, and is beyond the scope of this conversation.

I did the bible does not prohibit divorce it say that if you divorce for any toher reason than adultry, and you remarry you comit adultry? That is not prohibiting and I ahve answered this as yes that woud be a sin!

So not you have decided that a child is mature enough to have sex with a child, yet you are discriminating agaisnt an adult are you not....? You see acording to the left? you can't choose who you fall in love with? so you are now saying that a child can choose not to fall in love with an adult and an adult can choose not to fall in ove with a child?

So if this choise is possible then is it possible that an adult can choose who they fall ibn love with????

And as for inforcing the old testament of stoning those that comit adultry??? I will take the words of Jesus to decide this as well? "let those that are without sin cast the first stone"

I believe that I have answered your questions to the bets fo my ability,

I believe that marrage is defined in the new testament as between one man and one women

I believe that if you divorce for reasons other than adultry and remarry you ahve comitted adultry?

I do not beleive in Polygamy, incest, and pedifelia, or homosexuality.. I beleive those to be sins. not any better or worse than any other sin and I beleive in loving the sinner and hating the sin!

I beleive that many people do not treat marrage with the place that it is given in the bible and that divorce is way to easy.

I ahve aneat idea about that,,, I thing that the married couple should log each gift they receive, and if they divorce they invite the guests back pay the bridesmaids and grooms men for thier investment in the cloths, and give each person that attended a gift of equal or greater value to the one they received and then they can have thier divorce!

You see you are trying to use limited knowledge of the bible to make your moral opnion seem better? Yet you have not consented to incest, homosexuality, and polygamy and child on child sex? we now just have to find out when you think adults can have sex with children to see whre your morals truly lie?

[zelmo1234]

I said children are not mature enough to have sex with adults. That is a different issue entirely than having sex with their peers, and is beyond the scope of this conversation.

No I am trying to have a discussion about the morals of marrage and sex, and you have decided that this in not helping your point so you are calling this off limits?

that is intolerant of their position!

[TheInternet]

I did the bible does not prohibit divorce it say that if you divorce for any toher reason than adultry, and you remarry you comit adultry? That is not prohibiting and I ahve answered this as yes that woud be a sin!

So not you have decided that a child is mature enough to have sex with a child, yet you are discriminating agaisnt an adult are you not....? You see acording to the left? you can't choose who you fall in love with? so you are now saying that a child can choose not to fall in love with an adult and an adult can choose not to fall in ove with a child?

So if this choise is possible then is it possible that an adult can choose who they fall ibn love with????

And as for inforcing the old testament of stoning those that comit adultry??? I will take the words of Jesus to decide this as well? "let those that are without sin cast the first stone"

I believe that I have answered your questions to the bets fo my ability,

I believe that marrage is defined in the new testament as between one man and one women

I believe that if you divorce for reasons other than adultry and remarry you ahve comitted adultry?

I do not beleive in Polygamy, incest, and pedifelia, or homosexuality.. I beleive those to be sins. not any better or worse than any other sin and I beleive in loving the sinner and hating the sin!

I beleive that many people do not treat marrage with the place that it is given in the bible and that divorce is way to easy.

I ahve aneat idea about that,,, I thing that the married couple should log each gift they receive, and if they divorce they invite the guests back pay the bridesmaids and grooms men for thier investment in the cloths, and give each person that attended a gift of equal or greater value to the one they received and then they can have thier divorce!

You see you are trying to use limited knowledge of the bible to make your moral opnion seem better? Yet you have not consented to incest, homosexuality, and polygamy and child on child sex? we now just have to find out when you think adults can have sex with children to see whre your morals truly lie?

If you support legislating against the sin of homosexuality, why not legislate against the sin of adultery?

[TheInternet]

No I am trying to have a discussion about the morals of marrage and sex, and you have decided that this in not helping your point so you are calling this off limits?

that is intolerant of their position!

Dude, I don't know how else to say it.

An adult male fucking a child is far different than an adult male fucking another adult male.

Do you understand that?

Kids are being protected from sexual predators. The kids are victims. When two gay adults have sex no one is victimized.

Kids fucked by adults = victims

Adults fucked by adults = not victims.

Im not fucking being intolerant.

[zelmo1234]

I do not support legislating agianst the sin of homosexuality... I in on way would want to see it be illegal. as long as it is adults.

I even consented to wanting them to not be discriminated against with reguards to hospital visits, insurance, taxations ect/

But I do not think that they need ot be married,,, what about civil unions? is that now a compromize that we could live with..

And what about amking all that want these benifits file the civil union or call it leagal union license? and let Marrage be a church think and then let each and every church decide.

You had to put words in my mouth to justify your intolerance of my position did you not?

[zelmo1234]

Dude, I don't know how else to say it.

An adult male fucking a child is far different than an adult male fucking another adult male.

Do you understand that?

Kids are being protected from sexual predators. The kids are victims. When two gay adults have sex no one is victimized.

Kids fucked by adults = victims

Adults fucked by adults = not victims.

Im not fucking being intolerant.

And I am not being intolerant of a gay couple by thinking that marrage is or should be between one man and one women.

for the record once again I think that adult and child sex is totally wrong! I was trying to show you that we all make moral judgements!

[roadmaster]

And I am not being intolerant of a gay couple by thinking that marrage is or should be between one man and one women.

for the record once again I think that adult and child sex is totally wrong! I was trying to show you that we all make moral judgements!

They don't want civil unions because they can't try to force Churches to accept them. If it was all just about right, equal rights they would be having civil unions in every state now.

[zelmo1234]

^^^^^

Of course you are correct, and you can see just how far this is goiing to go, in just a few minute they started to agree that Incest was OK as long as they were adults, Polygamy was OK child on child sex was OK!

And when pushed to admit that they too were making moral judgements,,,,,, they gone!

but this is the argument that the conservatives are going to have to start to make to let those in the middle see just what affects liberal policies will have on the values of the country!

I think they have a nmessed up view of things

[Micketto]

Do you also support marriage of multiple partners as described in the old testament?

I'm not sure why so many people like to claim that just because something was discussed in the Bible, that it must be supported by God.

The Bible is rich with history. Much of it bad. Non-Christians just love to twist it into "it was in the Bible so Christians must love it".

I can see why Jillian always does it, she's miserably angry. Others? not sure....

A whole lot of "I saw someone use this in an argument once, so it must be true".

[Micketto]

The ones asking don't understand the Bible. Why bother to answer.

Instead of them asking questions, if they really want answers they should read it for themselves.
Challenging people in online forums, about things they themselves have no clue... seems ridiculous.

[Chris]

The ones asking don't understand the Bible. Why bother to answer.

Isn't this better stated as different people read the Bible differently.

[BB-35]

some nice 'christians' beat matthew shepard to death for being gay, too.

ASSuming now?