Evidence for God from Science

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.

So once again, where in the bible does it say Gays shouldn't be able to adopt? Maybe even a point-out of a place in the bible where it says only family unites can addopt (even though it'd be less relevant)?

Imperial wrote:

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.

Oh, so you are admitting that homosexuality stops the procreation of life... So what if your parents decided to do that? Would you be talking to us now?

Imperial wrote:2. Man and Women sex practices promote diseases...

They do not... Where is your proof for this assertion? The body was made for male/female intercourse.. Not the other way around.

Imperial wrote: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.

I just gave blood to the Red Cross a few weeks ago and they asked me if I engaged in gay sex recently... Why do you think they asked me that question? Source

Imperial wrote:4. Completely Irrelevant... If you have to ask, then you didn't think.

It does destroy the family. Males and females are different from another. They provide different role models for their children.. Who would want to deny their biological parent from their child anyway? Where is the child's right?

Imperial wrote: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.

That is not what NAMBLA is saying. They also want their constitutional rights... Why should they be deprived of their rights too?

Imperial wrote:6. Completely irrelevant. (What??? Kids wont use Gay as another word for "stupid" anymore? MEN get your pitchforks and torches!!!)

They are already teaching it anyways in schools... Like it's the norm which it is not.

Imperial wrote:7. Hmm no more discrimination? Sooooo um.. what was the problem you were trying to make here?

Yes, courts will be able to repeal traditional family unions involving one man and one woman.

Imperial wrote:8. This topic is irrelevant on anything to do with mental instabilities.

The scientific facts say otherwise... Please see below..

Imperial wrote:9. Selfishness? Is that you hiding down there??

It does raise costs for everyone... Please look again at the effects of the homosexual lifestyle here.

Imperial wrote:10. So um... what was the problem again?

It separates children from their biological parents..

It's a perverted lifestyle.. And I can't consciously vote for something that I think could harm someone. You see that body was not designed for sticking things where they shouldn't belong. Again this type of lifestyle...

1. It eliminates procreation.
2. It promotes diseases (some deadly). See here.
3. Many forms of sexual behavior prevent blood from being accepted through the Red Cross and other agencies.
4. It destroys traditional male/female family units.
5. It could promote polygamy and other alternatives to one-man, one-woman unions. One being man-boy perverted unions. (NAMBLA)
6. Public schools in the nation will be required to teach that this perversion is the moral equivalent of traditional marriage between a man and a woman.
7. Courts will not be able to favor a traditional family involving one man and one woman over a homosexual couple in matters of adoption.
8. Promotes psychiatric, mental and emotional disorders. See here.
9. Raises insurance costs for everyone.
10. Children will be placed in homes with parents representing only one sex on an equal basis with those having a mom and a dad.

Source: http://www.nogaymarriage.com/tenarguments.asp

By the way I would never advocate hating gays... Never... My neighbors happen to be gay and we get along just fine even though I don't agree with their lifestyle....

zoegirl wrote:
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.

The problem is, in some states it does take a civil union. It's pretty shocking that an adult can't have their say when ill.

Hey Imperial, haven't been able to get a chance to respond lately, sorry about that. Been very sick and tired a lot, doing a lot of work. Glad to see you have calmed down, please try and see why I was upset with you before, you just seemed on the attack. I will look at your links and respond when I feel better okay?

Oh and no, I am not against gays having rights, as Vicki stated above it is needed it seems. So if they wanted some sort of civil union then that is fine with me. Just not marriage.

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?

Great questions Zoe!

Gabrielman wrote:Hey Imperial, haven't been able to get a chance to respond lately, sorry about that. Been very sick and tired a lot, doing a lot of work. Glad to see you have calmed down, please try and see why I was upset with you before, you just seemed on the attack. I will look at your links and respond when I feel better okay?

Oh and no, I am not against gays having rights, as Vicki stated above it is needed it seems. So if they wanted some sort of civil union then that is fine with me. Just not marriage.

Well that's just fine. I don't care if you keep the ceramony of marriage a pure christian thing. The only real reason for me being for some kind of gay partnership was for the rights that are currently denied. That is all.

Imperial wrote:

Gabrielman wrote:Hey Imperial, haven't been able to get a chance to respond lately, sorry about that. Been very sick and tired a lot, doing a lot of work. Glad to see you have calmed down, please try and see why I was upset with you before, you just seemed on the attack. I will look at your links and respond when I feel better okay?

Oh and no, I am not against gays having rights, as Vicki stated above it is needed it seems. So if they wanted some sort of civil union then that is fine with me. Just not marriage.

Well that's just fine. I don't care if you keep the ceramony of marriage a pure christian thing. The only real reason for me being for some kind of gay partnership was for the rights that are currently denied. That is all.

See. We're not all that bad are we...

Whilst we go about expanding the definition of marriage, and to follow Zoegirl's radical lead, why stick with just two people? It's far too numberist for this modern age. Hey, why stick with just people? Why not allow human—animal relationships? Sticking with just people is far too specieist. But isn't being limited to animate objects too restrictive?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... years.html

DannyM wrote:Whilst we go about expanding the definition of marriage, and to follow Zoegirl's radical lead, why stick with just two people? It's far too numberist for this modern age. Hey, why stick with just people? Why not allow human—animal relationships? Sticking with just people is far too specieist. But isn't being limited to animate objects too restrictive?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... years.html

Dude omg i wish i could marry a penguin =O














naaah jk.. but here's a related video =D ----> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUnwaTI69L0

Imperial wrote:

Gabrielman wrote:Hey Imperial, haven't been able to get a chance to respond lately, sorry about that. Been very sick and tired a lot, doing a lot of work. Glad to see you have calmed down, please try and see why I was upset with you before, you just seemed on the attack. I will look at your links and respond when I feel better okay?

Oh and no, I am not against gays having rights, as Vicki stated above it is needed it seems. So if they wanted some sort of civil union then that is fine with me. Just not marriage.

Well that's just fine. I don't care if you keep the ceramony of marriage a pure christian thing. The only real reason for me being for some kind of gay partnership was for the rights that are currently denied. That is all.

I have thought on the issue of civil unions for several years.

I must say given my beliefs that a gay relationship is not intended as a part of God's design for marriage which lays the foundations of a family, civil unions should not be allowed if they endorse allowing children to be brought into such a relationship. To show non-prejudice, promiscuity can equally be argued from a Christian perspective as not intended in God's design.

The reasoning is quite straight-forward once one accepts homosexuality is not a part of our natural design (whether talking of God or natural biological evolution). If homosexuality is an abnormality, then it stands to reason there are consequences which will follow which lead towards negative consequences. For example, if a machine is engineered to work a certain way, and an abnormal part is introduced into the mix, things may not work as effectively or entirely break down. I believe civil unions lead to a non-intended family structure and breakdown in the intended design of husband+wife foundation which much research has proven has many benefits for raising children within.

If two people, particularly non-Christians, want to do as they please... they are free to bare the benefits and consequences of their own choices. The negative consequences of decisions should not be visited on others, particularly innocent children.

Kurieuo wrote:

Imperial wrote:

Gabrielman wrote:Hey Imperial, haven't been able to get a chance to respond lately, sorry about that. Been very sick and tired a lot, doing a lot of work. Glad to see you have calmed down, please try and see why I was upset with you before, you just seemed on the attack. I will look at your links and respond when I feel better okay?

Oh and no, I am not against gays having rights, as Vicki stated above it is needed it seems. So if they wanted some sort of civil union then that is fine with me. Just not marriage.

Well that's just fine. I don't care if you keep the ceramony of marriage a pure christian thing. The only real reason for me being for some kind of gay partnership was for the rights that are currently denied. That is all.

I have thought on the issue of civil unions for several years.

I must say given my beliefs that a gay relationship is not intended as a part of God's design for marriage which lays the foundations of a family, civil unions should not be allowed if they endorse allowing children to be brought into such a relationship. To show non-prejudice, promiscuity can equally be argued from a Christian perspective as not intended in God's design.

The reasoning is quite straight-forward once one accepts homosexuality is not a part of our natural design (whether talking of God or natural biological evolution). If homosexuality is an abnormality, then it stands to reason there are consequences which will follow which lead towards negative consequences. For example, if a machine is engineered to work a certain way, and an abnormal part is introduced into the mix, things may not work as effectively or entirely break down. I believe civil unions lead to a non-intended family structure and breakdown in the intended design of husband+wife foundation which much research has proven has many benefits for raising children within.

If two people, particularly non-Christians, want to do as they please... they are free to bare the benefits and consequences of their own choices. The negative consequences of decisions should not be visited on others, particularly innocent children.

Sooooo then you're saying that you believe all gay's should not have the right to be together and should just live alone for the rest of their lives without a significant other to love?

Imperial wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Imperial wrote:

Gabrielman wrote:Hey Imperial, haven't been able to get a chance to respond lately, sorry about that. Been very sick and tired a lot, doing a lot of work. Glad to see you have calmed down, please try and see why I was upset with you before, you just seemed on the attack. I will look at your links and respond when I feel better okay?

Oh and no, I am not against gays having rights, as Vicki stated above it is needed it seems. So if they wanted some sort of civil union then that is fine with me. Just not marriage.

Well that's just fine. I don't care if you keep the ceramony of marriage a pure christian thing. The only real reason for me being for some kind of gay partnership was for the rights that are currently denied. That is all.

I have thought on the issue of civil unions for several years.

I must say given my beliefs that a gay relationship is not intended as a part of God's design for marriage which lays the foundations of a family, civil unions should not be allowed if they endorse allowing children to be brought into such a relationship. To show non-prejudice, promiscuity can equally be argued from a Christian perspective as not intended in God's design.

The reasoning is quite straight-forward once one accepts homosexuality is not a part of our natural design (whether talking of God or natural biological evolution). If homosexuality is an abnormality, then it stands to reason there are consequences which will follow which lead towards negative consequences. For example, if a machine is engineered to work a certain way, and an abnormal part is introduced into the mix, things may not work as effectively or entirely break down. I believe civil unions lead to a non-intended family structure and breakdown in the intended design of husband+wife foundation which much research has proven has many benefits for raising children within.

If two people, particularly non-Christians, want to do as they please... they are free to bare the benefits and consequences of their own choices. The negative consequences of decisions should not be visited on others, particularly innocent children.

Sooooo then you're saying that you believe all gay's should not have the right to be together and should just live alone for the rest of their lives without a significant other to love?

My words are there for all to read. Don't add to them please.

They have the right to make their own decisions and that is between them and God. However, if any decision negatively impacts upon another innocent party, then laws should protect against this. There are many studies on raising children in varying environments, and evidence seems clear that the best environment is one that has both parents - mother and father.

To prevent you trying to attach further words to me, am I saying single parents shouldn't be given the option of raising their children? By no means. But I believe they shouldn't be given the option of IVF or adoption either.

PS. I'm sorry if you struggle with being gay, but thankfully that is not a problem I've had to deal with.