Evidence for God from Science

zoegirl wrote:IMperial, sometimes a poster responds to a comment made and then the post is edited. You can't get upset at this.

You need to calm down and stop bringing up obviously fringe videos. No one here has said that we hate gays. We don't set up videos calling for their death or any harm to come to them.

We have said that we are for a certain set of behaviors.

1) we are all sinners...we all have lying, cheating hearts that are willing to betray and hurt. We all at some level lust.

2) We are against murder, adultery, cheating, lying, theft, and other sinful acts along with homosexual acts. We know we are guilty.

3) We disagree with those who have established that these acts are not sinful. Anyone who justifies adultery or rationalizes murder or theft is in the same category as those that want to claim that homosexual acts are right.

This is ultimately an issue that calls into question what is right and wrong. Obviously we feel that marriage is between man and a woman.

Anything else we feel is wrong.

I believe i said THIS a few posts up ->

First of all, wow... I'm trying to calm down here and you're still flaming me? Secondly i edited to add a LOT more to it - sorry if you didnt see but here it is again.

I have calmed..... I no longer believe this site to be a hate group site. Now i just want to simply know if you're against them having rights, or if you simply want to keep marriage a pure Traditional Christian thing.

Imperial wrote:

Where's the discrimination? Seems to me that the people of Maine have exercised their democratic right and held fast to their ethical values; are you advocating political railroading? Also, is this an example of the "nasty old Christians"? Further, were 100% of those in favour of repealing this law Christian?

I have no idea what you're talking about tbh. And probably not - i know a few christians who are for gay marriage. However the biggest issue against gay marriage is almost always religious (christianity). If that answers at least 1 of your questions..


Also tbh im REALLY excited to see Gabriel's response to my edit >_> hopefully he'll see it by the time he actually gets here...

I went to your link, which offered a very short "article" "detailing" a vote taken in Maine to repeal a law allowing gay marriage. What are you looking to highlight here?

I went to your link, which offered a very short "article" "detailing" a vote taken in Maine to repeal a law allowing gay marriage. What are you looking to highlight here?

The point of the article was to show that approval for gay marriage is increasing, however i will again ask.

If there was somthing that allowed gay's to be an official couple with all the benefits of marriage, however the joining of them would not be a marriage but rather a legal agreement of some sort to become an official couple.... Would you be ok with that? OR do you just not want them to have any couple rights at all.

I want to know if its the marriage thing, or if you just don't want gays to have rights and be together at all.

Imperial wrote: I have calmed..... I no longer believe this site to be a hate group site. Now i just want to simply know if you're against them having rights, or if you simply want to keep marriage a pure Traditional Christian thing.

No one hates homosexuals here, but a sin is a sin... And yes we are against them from having rights because we believe the practice is bad for society.

Imperial wrote:

I went to your link, which offered a very short "article" "detailing" a vote taken in Maine to repeal a law allowing gay marriage. What are you looking to highlight here?

The point of the article was to show that approval for gay marriage is increasing, however i will again ask.

If there was somthing that allowed gay's to be an official couple with all the benefits of marriage, however the joining of them would not be a marriage but rather a legal agreement of some sort to become an official couple.... Would you be ok with that? OR do you just not want them to have any couple rights at all.

I want to know if its the marriage thing, or if you just don't want gays to have rights and be together at all.

In California, there's Domestic Partnership - they can do that. However, they apparently don't have as many rights. I'm not up on it all . . . I am for being able to see your significant other in the hospital without their family denying you that right. If that's not a part of Domestic Partnership now, it should be. I believe marriage was instituted by God and gays should not be married, but I don't mind them having some kind of legal contract to help them out, as in the hospital example I gave. Christians should be able to voice their convictions in these matters without being branded haters or anything else. However, we don't live in a theocracy and I believe the best way to stop abortions and other things we know God does not like, is to be loving. I don't mean loving in the sense of approving of sinful or hurtful things that people do, but to show love and humility to them in ways that will help them. One related thing - gays seem militant to me when they keep trying to call their union marriage (to make marriage into something it has never been), instead of trying to strengthen the domestic partnership laws.

Imperial wrote:If there was somthing that allowed gay's to be an official couple with all the benefits of marriage, however the joining of them would not be a marriage but rather a legal agreement of some sort to become an official couple.... Would you be ok with that? OR do you just not want them to have any couple rights at all.

I want to know if its the marriage thing, or if you just don't want gays to have rights and be together at all.

The sanctity of marriage must be preserved, of course. That is first and foremost. However, gays should be afforded certain legal rights. Better to let homosexuals register for civil/legal partnerships (and also co-habiting siblings- we had one such case in the UK where two elderly sisters had lived together for years: when one of them passed away the other was left with no rights because nothing was "legal" and binding); then you can can pass your property (and benefits) on as you wish. Marriage is something else, something “in the sight of God”. If you don't believe in God, why on earth would you even want to marry? Just have a civil partnership instead. Now, there may be many homosexual men out there who DO believe in God. If they are religious men then I'm sure they'll undertstand the concept of Marriage = Holy Matrimony = Union of man and woman. And I doubt very much that they'd wish to intrude upon this if they're religious.

The Christian does not hate a gay man. A true Christian, once he has accepted Christ, would not have it in him to hate anyone. There is nothing bigoted in wishing society preserve the established norms which have shaped cultures since the beginning.

Gman wrote:

Imperial wrote: I have calmed..... I no longer believe this site to be a hate group site. Now i just want to simply know if you're against them having rights, or if you simply want to keep marriage a pure Traditional Christian thing.

No one hates homosexuals here, but a sin is a sin... And yes we are against them from having rights because we believe the practice is bad for society.

I can't completely agree with this, Gman. If a proposal comes up where it outlines specific rights to be given to an unmarried couple(whether same sex or opposite sex), then I say let the people vote on the proposal. If it gets voted in, I have no problem with that. That's how our govt. is supposed to be. I just have a couple of questions pertaining to the very common argument of how a person should be able to see a dying partner in the hospital. Can't that be done now by having a lawyer draw up some kind of "will" or other legal paperwork? Are these gays who are pushing for "marriage" just looking for society to legitimize their behavior?

No one hates homosexuals here, but a sin is a sin... And yes we are against them from having rights because we believe the practice is bad for society.

Looking at the other's posts, i'd say so far you are the only one against them having rights. There is no we. And second, that's just plain cruel that you would be for reducing another individual's quality of life simply because of YOUR moral values. Keep marriage, but give gay's the rights they deserve as human beings.

Is is cruel to deny a polygamous man his wives? If he and they declare that each loves each other?

Is it cruel to deny three men and two women their rights to marry each other as a group?

If we regard something as against God's wishes, then denying that circumstance is not cruel but simply right.

Are you willing to grant anyone the rights of marriage? What define marriage then in your view? Is it only two people? Why? SImply because they love each other and are willing to make a commitment? Then certainly you should be willing to grant the above marital rights. If fact any such arrangement where the parties are willing to declare their love and commitment towards each other should be granted by the state. That seems to be the only valid criteria you have. What is so special about two people anyway?

RickD wrote:

Gman wrote:

Imperial wrote: I have calmed..... I no longer believe this site to be a hate group site. Now i just want to simply know if you're against them having rights, or if you simply want to keep marriage a pure Traditional Christian thing.

No one hates homosexuals here, but a sin is a sin... And yes we are against them from having rights because we believe the practice is bad for society.

I can't completely agree with this, Gman. If a proposal comes up where it outlines specific rights to be given to an unmarried couple(whether same sex or opposite sex), then I say let the people vote on the proposal. If it gets voted in, I have no problem with that. That's how our govt. is supposed to be.

Oh yes... Well if the people vote on a proposal, then by all means it needs to be honored.. And our government should enforce it..

RickD wrote:I just have a couple of questions pertaining to the very common argument of how a person should be able to see a dying partner in the hospital. Can't that be done now by having a lawyer draw up some kind of "will" or other legal paperwork? Are these gays who are pushing for "marriage" just looking for society to legitimize their behavior?

I don't think that anyone should be denied the right to see their dying partner. I think, however, that this is getting blown totally out of proportion drawing on certain "legal rights" and then accusing their adversaries of denying their rights of privacy or communion in a hospital. Of course something could be drafted up without having the legal stamp of "marriage" upon it, and I believe some of those things are already in place such as placing it in their "trust."

Again, it seems that they are trying to find ways to appeal to the masses... Saying their civil rights have been violated.

zoegirl wrote:Is is cruel to deny a polygamous man his wives? If he and they declare that each loves each other?

Is it cruel to deny three men and two women their rights to marry each other as a group?

If we regard something as against God's wishes, then denying that circumstance is not cruel but simply right.

Are you willing to grant anyone the rights of marriage? What define marriage then in your view? Is it only two people? Why? SImply because they love each other and are willing to make a commitment? Then certainly you should be willing to grant the above marital rights. If fact any such arrangement where the parties are willing to declare their love and commitment towards each other should be granted by the state. That seems to be the only valid criteria you have. What is so special about two people anyway?

Are you just simply ignoring all of my posts besides the parts you WANT to see? I repeat, i don't mind if you keep marriage a pure Christian thing. However people SHOULD have the rights that married couples have. The rights that married people have, have absoultely nothing to do with christianity. They are financial rights, medical rights, adoptive rights etc, is there some part of the bible that states what "rights" a married couple has? No? Then stop trying to imply that you must be Christian to OWN those rights. Keep your holy bond or whatever marriage is, and once again give the rights the gays deserve as HUMAN BEINGS.

If we regard something as against God's wishes, then denying that circumstance is not cruel but simply right.

Reducing someone's quality of life because of YOUR moral values, once again as i said. YES.. It is Cruel.

Imperial wrote:

No one hates homosexuals here, but a sin is a sin... And yes we are against them from having rights because we believe the practice is bad for society.

Looking at the other's posts, i'd say so far you are the only one against them having rights. There is no we. And second, that's just plain cruel that you would be for reducing another individual's quality of life simply because of YOUR moral values. Keep marriage, but give gay's the rights they deserve as human beings.

Cruelty? What about the cruel practices done under homosexuality that have resulted in diseases, emotional torment, and people's death as outlined here?

And what about the majority of Californians that voted for prop 8 recently? They are cruel too?

Adoptive rights imply a marriage, a family and we don't consider homosexual parents to be the family unit.

I don't mind being able to visit a dying partner....this hardly requires any civil union. Shoot we should be able to enter a hospital and declare who we want to visit us.

zoegirl wrote:Adoptive rights imply a marriage, a family and we don't consider homosexual parents to be the family unit.

I don't mind being able to visit a dying partner....this hardly requires any civil union. Shoot we should be able to enter a hospital and declare who we want to visit us.

Absolutely...

Cruelty? What about the cruel practices done under homosexuality that have resulted in diseases, emotional torment, and people's death as outlined here?

And what about the majority of Californians that voted for prop 8 recently? They are cruel too?

1. In a very small % of the world, which is probably better since populations are growing. If we over populate, we're done, and it probably will barely even slow that down.
2. Man and Women sex practices promote diseases...
3. Some of them being done in Man to Women marriages, and there are more things out there that would have a more severe impact than gay marriage.
4. Completely Irrelevant... If you have to ask, then you didn't think.
5. Gay marriage doesn't promote a couple having more than 2 people, it just promotes same sex marriage. Comparing it to somthing like boy to man is COMPLETELY blowing it out of proportion, this "reason" is usually used to scare undecided people into saying no to gay marriage.
6. Completely irrelevant. (What??? Kids wont use Gay as another word for "stupid" anymore? MEN get your pitchforks and torches!!!)
7. Hmm no more discrimination? Sooooo um.. what was the problem you were trying to make here?
8. This topic is irrelevant on anything to do with mental instabilities.
9. Selfishness? Is that you hiding down there??
10. So um... what was the problem again?