CA Prop. 8 shot down

  • Thread starter Thread starter WinterBorn
  • Start date Start date
Alias said:
Oh, for sure. So was Jesus. Jesus said this....."And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
Click to expand...

But wasn't woman created because God saw that man was lonely? The goal was companionship, not children. Remember Adam hiding after eating from the tree of knowlwdge? Adam then looked at Eve and said, "YUM!" :D
 
dixon76710 said:
No
Click to expand...

Good; because it destroys your assertion that marriage is for procreation.

Marriage was intended for two PEOPLE to create a warm and loving home, where they could show their love for each other and share what they acquire together.

As someone else said: This is all about the "icky" factor, that too many people are focusing on.
I don't see those same people focusing on the sexual behavior that hetrosexual couples involve themselves in.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
And how does discriminating against gay couples do that?
Click to expand...

??? Witholding the benefits of marriage from gay couples, or any couple made up of two people of the same sex doesnt improve the well being of children. It is in extending them to heterosexual couples, the only couples who procreate.

Mott the Hoople said:
My brother and his partner had a son, via a surrogate, and raised him. He's now 22 years old and a normally adjusted young man. So please explain to me how gay couples cannot raise normal children?
Click to expand...

Any two people could do that. Sticking their dicks in each others butts doesnt endow them with superior child raising skills. Biological parents arent prefered because they are sexual, they are preferred because they are the biological parents. A male lion will fight to the death to protect his offspring. He will likely kill the offspring of another male lion.

Anyway, more single mothers and grandmothers raising children together right now, than have ever been raised by gay couples. No justification for such discriminatory treatment, favoring gay couples, over ANY TWO PEOPLE who find themselve raising a child together.
 
apple0154 said:
But wasn't woman created because God saw that man was lonely? The goal was companionship, not children. Remember Adam hiding after eating from the tree of knowlwdge? Adam then looked at Eve and said, "YUM!" :D
Click to expand...

Nope. Companionship AND children....."God said to Adam and Eve, Be fruitful and multiply". God didn't say to Adam and Steve..."Be Fruity and a gadfly".
 
Alias said:
When you have some evidence that people are born homosexual then be sure to present it. So, yes I don't believe people are born queer. Looks like your surprise at that is limited to only your opinion and not based on scientific fact. Thanks, I already knew that.
Click to expand...
That's because you don't know shit about biology. Heterosexual and Homosexualality are socioligical designations and are not biological ones. All humans are born as sexual beings and from a biological perspective all sexual behavior is inborn and inate. Sexual preference might be learned behavior but sexuality, of any stripe, is something we are all born with. To even argue that people aren't born homosexual is the height of ignorance!
 
Alias said:
Nope. Companionship AND children....."God said to Adam and Eve, Be fruitful and multiply". God didn't say to Adam and Steve..."Be Fruity and a gadfly".
Click to expand...
God didn't say "Go and be a moron and make an ass of yourself" either but that sure hasn't stopped you, has it?
 
Alias said:
Not for Christians.
Click to expand...

Are you absolutely positive about this; because at one a man could have numerous wives and was even obligated to take in the widow of his brother, as his wife.
Are you saying that "Christians" never were involved in marriages that involved young girls just barely in their puberty.
For how long did "Christians" feel that wives were property, or that the man was within his rights for demanding sexual services from his wife.
It hasn't really been that long ago, when a man's property (upon his death) went to another male family member and not his "wife".

So I ask again: Are you absolutely positive about this?
 
Alias said:
That relates to me as a human being. I am a male human being. I told you we were gonna have some fun.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm sure you are the type that is so easily amused as to go on and on with trivial and ultimately needless information. So answer the question, were you born heterosexual, or did you choose it?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That's because you don't know shit about biology. Heterosexual and Homosexualality are socioligical designations and are not biological ones. All humans are born as sexual beings and from a biological perspective all sexual behavior is inborn and inate. Sexual preference might be learned behavior but sexuality, of any stripe, is something we are all born with. To even argue that people aren't born homosexual is the height of ignorance!
Click to expand...

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.......To even argue that people are born homosexual is the height of ignorance....
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Good; because it destroys your assertion that marriage is for procreation.
Click to expand...


???? I never claimed it was. Procreation continues just fine with or without marriage. A father with a sexually active daughter, doesnt encourage her to pick one man to marry, because he is concerned she wont procreate without a marriage. It is because he is concerned she will procreate. Because a wamoan having sex with a man has the POTENTIAL OF PROCREATION.
Birth control pills arent for procreation either. BUT THE POTENTIAL of procreation is why women take birth control pills.
 
Alias said:
Nope. Companionship AND children....."God said to Adam and Eve, Be fruitful and multiply". God didn't say to Adam and Steve..."Be Fruity and a gadfly".
Click to expand...

I wondered how long it would take, before someone rolled out the "Adam and Steve" argument.
You win; but you really lose.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Are you absolutely positive about this; because at one a man could have numerous wives and was even obligated to take in the widow of his brother, as his wife.
Are you saying that "Christians" never were involved in marriages that involved young girls just barely in their puberty.
For how long did "Christians" feel that wives were property, or that the man was within his rights for demanding sexual services from his wife.
It hasn't really been that long ago, when a man's property (upon his death) went to another male family member and not his "wife".

So I ask again: Are you absolutely positive about this?
Click to expand...

Yes, I am positive about this. Christians believe one man and one woman is what the Christian Church teaches. If you can show me something from the New Testament that challenges that, then I'd be interested to see it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top