RACIST Slurs

[donner]

Those of you arguing with me about sterile couples are missing the point. The reason that marriage is one man, one woman, is because we were created that way in order to facilitate the formation of the family unit. The fact that some marriages don't produce biological children doesn't negate the definition of marriage. By contrast *no same sex union* can produce children *ever*. That's the difference which to me seems like common sense, but which so many cannot seem to grasp (or choose not to).

Why is it so difficult to understand that a man's penis was not meant to enter another man's anus? And why are so many of you so eager to facilitate that?

Dude, you've got a real sex hangup. But that aside, i don't think the people who are pointing out you're wrong are missing any point of lacking any common sense. As you've stated, you believe in a religious definition of marriage, which is just a different definition than a lot of other people here are using. Many have stated they are fine with leaving 'marriage' to the church and the civil contract to the state.

I think the point that I, and several others, have pointed out is that 'family' doesn't always equate to sexual reproduction. Two men, two women, a man a woman etc can all provide children with loving and caring homes. Just because someone can't have a biological child doesn't disqualify them from being a family (or family unit, as you put it). The strength of the family has a lot more to do with love than it does with the possibilities of biological reproduction. Two people can be 'married,' biologically fertile and still form an awful 'family' for a child.

While same sex couples do need outside help, why does it matter if that help is IVF, sperm donors or just outright adoption of a child like other heterosexual couples?

 

[caojyn]

You don't know much about history, do you?

so the king of England wasn't the head of the English church?

 

[vvvvvvv]

It's an unbiblical law anyway. The Bible says nothing on the subject.

Some church leaders would disagree.

The vices you describe are all varieties of self-harm, either economic or physical. We are supposed to glorify God in our bodies, and be good stewards of our finances. That's why those activities are immoral. BTW the Bible does not say that drinking or smoking are sinful, unless they become addictions, or they are done to excess and become harmful.

So based on this, in your view drug use is morally right as long as it's not to excess and harmful?

How is responsible gambling economically harmful? If I roll up to the blackjack table, knowing that I will come out ahead, how am I not being a good steward?

Why should a person be forced by a government to conform to a particular group's ideas of what is moral and immoral?



FWIW, I see a distinction between government-sanctioned marriage and Holy Matrimony.

 

[vvvvvvv]

They are advocating state sanctioning of such activity, and further demanding that I approve of it.

How so?

 

[Hobbes]

See, if this was Iran we could see that some people prefer a theocracy run by sharia law and others would prefer a secular government.
But it's not Iran, it's the US so we argue about running the US government according to "Judeo-Christian" principles while other people prefer a secular government.

 

[Oklahomabassin]

I am going back to the hunting/fishing section. ******** is getting deep in here.

 

[ez bake]

I am going back to the hunting/fishing section. ******** is getting deep in here.

No $#!+ man. I'm going back to the gear section.

 

[JCW355]

How about a hug everyone ?

 

[caojyn]

caution language:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoDpghAaXT4

 

[vvvvvvv]

See, if this was Iran we could see that some people prefer a theocracy run by sharia law and others would prefer a secular government.
But it's not Iran, it's the US so we argue about running the US government according to "Judeo-Christian" principles while other people prefer a secular government.

As a Christian myself, I agree with your point.