hundinman Posted January 3, 2004 Share Posted January 3, 2004 White Wolf, GOD EXISTS! It is my opinion and belief. God was against homosexuality and he condemned all who were apart in it to hell. He is still against it today, read the Holy Bible. Its all there. Read it all you can get one for five dollars. If you don't believe it still then my work is done, I can't force you to believe it but give it a chance, you certainly are entertaning the thought of no God. HundinmanAmusing. I urge you to provide proof of your deity before judging your life and other people's lives on it. This bible you speak of was written by men like me and you.They have never seen or met any god. This leads me to conclude that all the new solely male gods are mere fabrications, made to control the lives of people like your good self, sir. However, in our societies, homosexuals do indeed exist.It matters not if you are hateful, tolerant or indifferent (like me) to them.We must deal with this everyday reality. And hiding behind impossible vintage scripture will not suffice. Please do not see this as a slate of your beliefs.But merely a call to begin questioning them. Curt Sibling, I beg your pardon, if you read the Bible then you will clearly see that the most of the authors of the Bible saw God. The Bible says that all scripture is God breathed. In other words, the scriptures were dictated by God and written by the authors. Read it, you will see it. hundinman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eltiraaz Posted January 3, 2004 Share Posted January 3, 2004 Well. I cant speak for God, but the church itself isnt anti-homosexual. It is against homosexual marriage. However, devout Christian that I am, I've never been overly fond of the church, with its eloborate schemes, and the breaking of its own rules over the centuries. I believe that homosexuals are entitled to every right of anyone else, and that includes the right to publicly display the love of their partners. Marriage, is a bit of a stretch, because I dont believe that you have to be married to someone in order publicly display love. If the homosexual community feels the need to have a piece of paper certify their love, then what kind of strong love is that? Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. That is not only the laws of religion, but of nature. Birds and several other animals choose a mate for life. You can be someones life-partner without being legally married to them, IMO. Eltiraaz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hundinman Posted January 3, 2004 Share Posted January 3, 2004 as long as they are not displaying themselves making love. Anyway, to me the thought of seeing them display anything in public is gross. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eltiraaz Posted January 3, 2004 Share Posted January 3, 2004 Heterosexuals may not understand homosexuals, I certainly dont. ( I mean how can you resist women :lol: ) But in the end if you love someone, then you love someone... and thats all it boils down to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hundinman Posted January 3, 2004 Share Posted January 3, 2004 yes, but you are right, how can you resist chicks!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted January 3, 2004 Share Posted January 3, 2004 Marriage, is a bit of a stretch, because I dont believe that you have to be married to someone in order publicly display love. If the homosexual community feels the need to have a piece of paper certify their love, then what kind of strong love is that? Except that in our society, married people are given more benefits than unmarried couples. Basic equality says that these rights should be extended to any form of marriage. as long as they are not displaying themselves making love. Anyway, to me the thought of seeing them display anything in public is gross. And I can think of quite a few male/female public displays that are equally annoying to watch. The basic point is, you have no right to extend your own preferences to enforce rules on anyone else. yes, but you are right, how can you resist chicks!!!!!!!!!! Borderline spam. But... your opinion is irrelevant to this discussion. So maybe you "can't resist chicks". But why should that apply to anyone else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Almelexia Posted January 3, 2004 Share Posted January 3, 2004 acrid i didnt mean i have been in something unatural if thats what you think! I just mean that if some people has a very lucky time they might think it is god that has helped them. I didnt say I beileved in god Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ctogher Posted January 5, 2004 Share Posted January 5, 2004 Having spent a glorius weekend arguing this with the family, it occurs to me that virtually all the "pro" arguments can also be used to support child abuse or inter-familial relationships. :o This raised the point that perhaps the depth of feeling surrounding this debate stems from our uncertainty as to where all this free love and expressionsim will end... <_< Could it be that we as a species are actively deconstructing a social dynamic which has seen us through a good couple of thousand years, ensured our survival and driven our creativity... have we reached our apex of development and begun to stagnate? Just a thought...... ^_^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iluventi Posted January 5, 2004 Share Posted January 5, 2004 as long as they are not displaying themselves making love. Anyway, to me the thought of seeing them display anything in public is gross. What is so different to seeing a girl and a guy displaying anything in public? And please don't say "it's normal" :P What is normal? ....And in the end, who really cares? As long as they're happy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted January 5, 2004 Share Posted January 5, 2004 Having spent a glorius weekend arguing this with the family, it occurs to me that virtually all the "pro" arguments can also be used to support child abuse or inter-familial relationships Wrong. That's clear harm to an innocent child. The same can not be said about having homosexual parents. And relationships within a family should be allowed, as long as they do not have any children. The no children rule being because there is a greater chance of genetic problems if they do. But as for other cases... whether we agree with it, find it disgusting, or whatever else we might feel, what happens between two (or more) people is their own buisiness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.