Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, that at a biological level is unnatural. A species can not survive that way.

Please, social animals have no need for every member to breed and most benefit from having members that don't. Read up on the 'bachelor uncle' theories about how having a few unattached male relatives greatly enhances the survival of the family gene line in social mammals.
 
Yep, genetic abnormalities happen, I know. Doesn't mean they survive in the wild. Some deer are born white or half white. They rarely survive because it is abnormal.

Animals born with sensory problems, like nearsightedness (for species that rely heavily on sight), also tend not to survive very long in nature.
 
Please, social animals have no need for every member to breed and most benefit from having members that don't. Read up on the 'bachelor uncle' theories about how having a few unattached male relatives greatly enhances the survival of the family gene line in social mammals.

My bachelor uncle isn't gay. He's single cuz he isnt smooth like me, or like Keith stone.

I say we now justify mating with cousins. Id love to wake up seeing both gay and straights holding hands and casting stones at those gibronnies!
 
Fail troll is fail.

Youre so smooth!

On another gay thought, why do gays have lil soldier men if they cannot procreate with their mate? Please keep this within the scope of animal kingdom so us stag lions can relate.
 
People get married because you have extra legal rights, rights that strengthen the bond between spouses and make it harder to break that bond. Both partners own half of all money and property gained after getting married, and it all needs to be split up if they decide to get divorced (unless it is mutual divorce in which case each spouse keeps 100% of their own property). It helps people to think twice about cheating. You cheat and then when your spouse divorces you in court you lose the right to your half of their property and they can still take their half of your property.

It is very hard for a couple to adopt unless they are full-fledged married. Men can donate sperm so their genes aren't lost, for women the equivalent is more complicated so it isn't as easy to do.
 
That this even becomes a big deal makes me happy for living in Sweden where most people are not religous, not sure I'd be able to keep cool with all religous nutcases running around.
 
Hypocritical? How so? The Bible is very clear on it and so is the average church.

Read what I said, "hypocritical interpretation"

Hypocritical because the Church says one thing but preaches something different.

The worst injunction that The Church puts on people is to condemn them for their thoughts. A marriage is precisely meant for growth. The Church says that that sex in marriage is a "holy union" and so forth, however it then seeks to define limitations that should be and could be explored in the mental realm, because this might involve "impure" thoughts (as defined by the Church).

Not that people know how to do this, as I show (by using Eyes Wide Shut as an example) on my site, but if I just state simply my ideas and concepts which are actually good to hear, it is against some of the Church teachings that are based on nothing but incorrect beliefs. Masturbation for example, is said by most Christian organisations to be a scourge on a healthy marriage, but this is untenable. The problem they have with the concept is the so called thoughts that may accompany it, which leads to the 'thoughts are as good as a deed' nonsense. This type of false equation is the cause of many problems.

But to be fair, it's also a common secular belief too.
 
People are such hypocrites they pick and choose what they deem allowable. If I am in love with two different people why should I be denied the same rights as any other marriage?

[Marriage = man and woman] I'll allow it.
[Marriage = man and man] I'll allow it.
[Marriage = woman and woman] I'll allow it.
[Marriage = 1 man and 2 women] WOAH WOAH! We can't have that!

Hypocrites!!! Show me where my logic is flawed??
One flaw in your logic is community property. In many states when you are married, your spouse is entitled to half of the assets in the marriage. So if you are one of the women in the last example, and your husband and your wife both decide to divorce you, will they each take half, leaving you with nothing, or will it have to be split into thirds, leaving you with only a third?

Really, I have no objections to plural marriages, so long as none of the people in the marriage are coerced, and all of their rights are protected. I just don't have any role models of this kind of marriage, so I'm waiting for someone who actually wants to be in one to step forward and make the case.

I strongly suspect you are opposed to plural marriages, so I don't trust you to make the case in an honest way.

Legal recognition of same-sex marriage is likely to become the the law of the land whether through the court, legislatures, or direct vote (or some combination of the three as has happened so far). Once that happens, if you are still advocating for plural marriages, I'll be happy to hear your justifications, and we can discuss how you'd ensure the rights of all the spouses can be protected (because if they can't, there's no way I can support it).
 
Children have the right to have a male and a female parent. I'm not saying that heterosexual parents are automatically good for kids, because that is not true, but what is true is that same sex parents could not provide the necessary psychological male/female role models for young children, even if they wanted to because they will be by definition the same sex.

By endorsing 'same sex marriages' the concept of a male and female role model being necessary for a healthy upbringing is implicitly recognised as not necessary. This is the real harm. So it makes it even more difficult than it already is to undo much of the damage that has been allowed to happen.

Children should be taught toleration for the lifestyle that people choose to live, including homosexual couples however they should also be told that it is not condoned as a healthy psychological choice.
 
By endorsing 'same sex marriages' the concept of a male and female role model being necessary for a healthy upbringing is implicitly recognised as not necessary.

Could you explain to me what those 'role models' are? According to studies there is usually a 70-80% quality overlap between the sexes in any quality measured. That means lots of men are more 'feminine' than women are and women more 'masculine' and yet they are allowed to register as spouses.

And what does this have to do with civil marriage anyway? No one need be registered as spouses to raise a child or be their parent. If the benefits of civil marriage are to be believed what ever the sex of the parents their children will benefit from the parents being registered.

Wudda shudda coulddas won't change the fact that if the children are what's important then all parents should be allowed to register as spouses.
 
Children have the right to have a male and a female parent. I'm not saying that heterosexual parents are automatically good for kids, because that is not true, but what is true is that same sex parents could not provide the necessary psychological male/female role models for young children, even if they wanted to because they will be by definition the same sex.

By endorsing 'same sex marriages' the concept of a male and female role model being necessary for a healthy upbringing is implicitly recognised as not necessary. This is the real harm. So it makes it even more difficult than it already is to undo much of the damage that has been allowed to happen.

Children should be taught toleration for the lifestyle that people choose to live, including homosexual couples however they should also be told that it is not condoned as a healthy psychological choice.

Any study to back your claims or are they only ******** to be against same sex marriage?
 
Everyone deserves to be happy.

Now the real tricky part is getting other countries in the world to recognize it too (even if they don't allow it).
 
Any study to back your claims or are they only ******** to be against same sex marriage?

Can you be more precise as to which claims you are referring. I'll be happy to elaborate.

Could you explain to me what those 'role models' are? According to studies there is usually a 70-80% quality overlap between the sexes in any quality measured. That means lots of men are more 'feminine' than women are and women more 'masculine' and yet they are allowed to register as spouses.

According to studies... Thems a soundin like weasel words. If you tighten up your question I'll be happy to answer.

and what does this have to do with civil marriage anyway?

What does what, have to do with civil marriage? I'm not really getting your question. As per previous statement, if you clarify your question I'll answer.

The rest of your post is also confusing. Look see if you can focus whatever it is you'd like me to answer. If you just want to make general statements then don't make it under a quote from me as if it is anything to do with me.
 
Humorous since the biblical fathers held that the age of consent was 12 for girls and 13 for boys. In that aspect sexual immorality has been bound to a higher standard than it was then.

Christians know that a gay couple can follow Christ's Law just as well as a straight one and that is all Christians are required to do. For all things compatible with that Law they were given the power to bind and loosen requirements as the times and need requires. Sex is a purely terrestrial dogma, Jesus said there was no sex in heaven - it is exactly this kind of issue that Christians were allows to change as our understanding changed.

So yes, despite what the ChINOs say, it is alright for a woman to teach a man, to have their head uncovered in church, buy a car on the Sabbath, shoot move the Sabbath, take over a pagan holiday to celebrate Christ's birth on a day not His birthday, charge interest on a loan, get into heaven in spite of unrepentant self-abuse, etc.

To real Chirstians who accept Christ's light yoke, marriage equality is in keeping with His Law.

Humorous since the biblical fathers held that the age of consent was 12 for girls and 13 for boys. In that aspect sexual immorality has been bound to a higher standard than it was then.

Christians know that a gay couple can follow Christ's Law just as well as a straight one and that is all Christians are required to do. For all things compatible with that Law they were given the power to bind and loosen requirements as the times and need requires. Sex is a purely terrestrial dogma, Jesus said there was no sex in heaven - it is exactly this kind of issue that Christians were allows to change as our understanding changed.

So yes, despite what the ChINOs say, it is alright for a woman to teach a man, to have their head uncovered in church, buy a car on the Sabbath, shoot move the Sabbath, take over a pagan holiday to celebrate Christ's birth on a day not His birthday, charge interest on a loan, get into heaven in spite of unrepentant self-abuse, etc.

To real Chirstians who accept Christ's light yoke, marriage equality is in keeping with His Law.

I'm going to say your knowledge of scripture is flawed in saying that sexual sins were held to a lower standard then. Back in the days of scripture, there was an age of consent. Where twelve and thirteen year old men and women were able to own their own property and were treated as adult human beings who were responsible for themselves and their own well being. We don't even treat sixteen year olds as adults these days but they're stupid and immature; spoiled in ways that people in biblical times could only imagine was heaven.... and would not be able to survive a month in that time period.

So..."forgive" me if I don't believe you but.. back your first assertion with scripture, please. I know Mohammed the Muslim prophet came to "know" an...eight? year old girl. And yeah, that's not my cup o' tea.

The Bible does not describe homosexuality as a “greater” sin than any other. All sin is offensive to God. He spoke of what we must do to get into Heaven. And that is to believe in his sacrifice AND become a penetant soul. The Holy Trinity is who Christians worship. It is not about accepting unrepentant souls into heaven and forgiving deviants. The Lord loves those who change, recognize their sin and turn away from their sin. He says if you come to him, believe in Christ and repent of your sins...which means you will turn COMPLETELY from your bad path whatever it may be...worship of false idols, adultery, murder, thievery, homosexuality... he will cast out your sins and forget them forever. I don't go to Church every day. I wouldn't pretend that any other sin would be forgiven either unless you hadn't repented of your sins. And I won't pretend I like I have a better chance than a gay man at getting into Heaven. Sin is sin.

The word repentance in the Hebrew text holds heavy weight that the English word "repent" cannot properly express. So I'm not saying, " God hates gays. ". Or " God hates gays. ". Or "God hates sinners". He loves us all. He is just sad to see that we are not following his Law and being truly penetant Christians/Hindus/Buddhists/Muslims/Agnostics and therefore
will, (sorry Atheists) not pass. Basically in summation, very few will make it into heaven. And when he comes back he's going to be piss** at everyone.

He leveled Sodom and Gomorrah for it (***all*** of their sins ) and would not want any other sin writ into human law that would oppose his own. It ain't personal. It's just what the bible says about homosexuality. If you want to know what it says about lust or worshipping other Gods I could inform you of that too.

So go ahead and have a domestic partnership, civil union or same sex union. Please don't call it marriage. Marriage is something that God made between a man and a woman and he was very clear on it. Call it something else...anything else. Same tax benefits I don't care just change the LABEL. Just leave the *word* alone. You can even say we just got, "Hitched!". It is called, " Same sex marriage". If you called it "Same sex union" I would have no qualms. If you really want to eliminate opposition to the idea change the name and I'm on board. Bring it. It's like wanting to play someone else's poker game with your own rules. In the end, you just lose man. God is pissed and it's going to be awesome. ;)

( :D TO everyone. Sorry I started/added to this stupid debate thing. :eek: You win. :eek: I don't care. :cool: I didn't realize there would be so much uh...words and ideas. :p Much love. :p:p:p oh and p.s: watch the movie: "Life of Pi" it's really cool. It's about an Indian guy that survives a ship wreck with a wild animal on board his craft. And how he comes to believe in the divine...(( he believes in like millions of Gods..literally. IT has nothing to do with this article or homosexuality or sinning but just love and understanding the storm we call life. That was a long rant I am sooo sorry guys :( :( :cool: )
 
Last edited:
As long as Apple doesn't shove it in my face I'll keep using their products. But if they do I'll have no problem dumping them like I've done with Amazon and JCPenney. I'd love to do it with Google and Microsoft but its damn near impossible. :(

Methinks thou dost protest too much.
 
Can you be more precise as to which claims you are referring. I'll be happy to elaborate.


the necessary psychological male/female role models for young children, -> Why male/female roles are necessaty?

the concept of a male and female role model being necessary for a healthy upbringing is implicitly recognised as not necessary. This is the real harm. -> Why not having male/female roles are nor healthy and harmly?
 
the necessary psychological male/female role models for young children, -> Why male/female roles are necessaty?

Well just to give one example. If you look around you can see a trend to infantilise women by making what would have been a minority fetish, ie removing all hair from the pubic region, into mainstream acceptance. When Playboy, a mainstream establishment magazine, that has interviewed the President of the USA, start depicting women with entirely denuded pubes, then... Huston, we have a problem. How does this come about. What man would want his woman to look like a pre pubescent girl?

There needs to be strong Male role models in families where there are girls so the girls know that a man does not have to be a weak POS.
 
Well just to give one example. If you look around you can see a trend to infantilise women by making what would have been a minority fetish, ie removing all hair from the pubic region, into mainstream acceptance. When Playboy, a mainstream establishment magazine, that has interviewed the President of the USA, start depicting women with entirely denuded pubes, then... Huston, we have a problem. How does this come about. What man would want his woman to look like a pre pubescent girl?

There needs to be strong Male role models in families where there are girls so the girls know that a man does not have to be a weak POS.

You're not seroius, are you? What the **** has to do shaving pubic hair with striong male roles?

It seems that I was right, it is only anti same sex marriage ******** and nothing more
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.