Yay for California!

If you push the sheep close to the edge of a cliff they no longer resist seeing death as their alternative to making love.
 
Thats very intelligent of them ^^
 
Wrangell said:
I see no reason why kids shouldn't be made aware that some families - in fact, most - consist of a " mom " and a " dad".

But, kids should also be made aware of the fact that some families may also consist of a " mom " & " mom ", or a " dad " & " dad ", or a " mom " alone or a " dad " alone etc.

Too funny !

Sorry, but that's just another example of slippery slope reasoning.

However, if you are a big fan of slippery slope reasoning, I'd say that the prevalence of divorce has a much greater potential to move people to think that it " weird " to have " male and female parents that are still married " than simply acknowledging that same sex marriage is a legal right.
Click to expand...

It's not slippery slope reasoning when there's evidence that California is moving in that direction.

Divorce may contribute to the "still married" part, and will probably be constant factor in gay and straight marriage, but it has no prevalence to male and female parents... which is what this discussion is orignally about.

BigTomW said:
All you are doing is throwing opinions at each other, wasting your time. Because after it all, nothing will have changed including your views etc.
Click to expand...

True, but it keeps me occupied at work.
 
SkianS40 said:
It's not slippery slope reasoning when there's evidence that California is moving in that direction.
Click to expand...

If anything, California is moving towards a greater degree of equality among it's citizens.

Legalizing same sex marriage doesn't diminish the relevance, dominance or validity of opposite sex marriage in American society in any way.

To suggest the mere fact that legalizing same sex marriage - on it's own - will significantly increase the probability of such an impact occurring is slippery slope reasoning at it's best ( worst ) IMO.

SkianS40 said:
Divorce may contribute to the "still married" part, and will probably be constant factor in gay and straight marriage, but it has no prevalence to male and female parents... which is what this discussion is orignally about.
Click to expand...

And legalizing same sex marriage will have absolutely no significant impact on increasing the prevalence that opposite sex marriages being viewed as " weird ".

To suggest otherwise is classic slippery slope reasoning IMO.
 
Kraken said:
How 'bout them Red Wings?
Click to expand...

:sleeping:

I'm from Pittsburgh...

For the record, we are 10-4 through the first three rounds and have successfully picked the Penguins and Red Wings to reach the Cup finals. All of which means nothing, but we thought we'd say it anyway. Even though the Red Wings boast a much more talented blue line (at least on paper), we like Fleury's toothy confidence and think the Wings aren't going to have an answer for Crosby, Malkin and Staal down the middle. In the end, it will be the Penguins. Penguins in seven.


Scott Burnside is the NHL writer for ESPN.com.
Click to expand...
 
The Bible's condemnation of ^^^^sexuality is as clear and plain as the Bible's condemnation of murder, adultery, premarital sex, kidnapping, lying and idolatry. Further, for me to openly condemn ^^^^sexuality theologically makes me no more a "gay basher" than I am an "adultery basher", "premarital sex basher", "kidnapper basher" or a "murderer basher". If you disagree, your argument is with God's Bible.

The ^^^^sexual community has two ways of promoting their personal choices of being ^^^^sexual through the religious forum. First, some will claim the Bible actually promotes and condones ^^^^sexuality. Second, others try to get the Bible banned from public use by categorizing it as hate literature.

For any to use the Bible to condone rather than condemn ^^^^sexual activity in the theological arena just proves such a one has absolutely no idea what the Bible actually teaches. For anyone to suggest the Bible says ^^^^sexual activity is acceptable to God, is nothing short of willful blindness. So to set the record straight once and for all, here is what the Bible teaches on the subject.

Anyone who has heard of the cities of "Sodom and Gommorah" knows that they were notorious hotbeds of ^^^^sexuality. Gen 19:5-8 "and they called to Lot and said to him, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.' But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, and said, 'Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly.'" The Greek word in the New Testament for ^^^^sexuality is literally "a sodomite". Jock is trying to redefine what the term "sodomite" means. (A term that has unchanged in 5000 years, even today- "sodomy") Apart from the fact the city was clearly destroyed by God because of ^^^^sexuality in the narrative of Gen 19, even the New Testament clearly states exactly the same thing in Jude 7 "Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire." Any sinner should always remember that the God who commands us to love our neighbour is the same God who will cast any and all unrepentant sinners into the "eternal fire". Here are more Bible quotes, Lev 18:22-23 "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." Lev 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death." 1 Cor 6:9 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor ^^^^sexuals" 1 Tim 1:9-10 "realizing the fact that (civil) law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and ^^^^sexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers" Rom 1:26-27 "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."

If the ^^^^sexual community chooses to practice ^^^^sexuality in privacy, that is there free choice. But let such persons know for certain that the Christian Bible condemns all such practices and God will judge them unfit for the kingdom of heaven if the continue to practice and openly promote ^^^^sexual sex.
Click to expand...
Quoted for truth.
 
ShaftedTwice said:
Quoted for truth.
Click to expand...

What about people who don't believe that the bible rules the world? Then a reference to the bible is pointless. If you're a Christian, and have a problem with same sex couples, then keep it to yourself. Not everyone has the same opinion as you. Not everyone lives by the same laws. There is no one single truth.
 
Wrangell said:
If that sort of ' truth ' represents an example faith-based bigotry - then I would agree.:)

Besides, the debate over the validity of same sex marriage is about equality and discrimination - not religious faith.
Click to expand...

Yep absolutely. Religion is something that we an choose to believe in or not. It really does help some people make sense of the world. It should not, however, dictate our national and state laws.
 
LeiYunFat said:
lulz

God loves hot* lesbians, though. Everyone does.


(*edit)
Click to expand...

See...and that distinction makes all the difference; cause short-haired boyish-looking butch dikes just ain't hot. Sorry you were born w/o a penis; get over it.

I wish I could contribute on a more intellectual basis to this intriguing and thoroughly fascinating conversation...but, no. :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top