Rick Perry's View on Marriage

Damn Yankee said:
Supporters of gay marriage are enabling and encouraging homosexuality, for one.

You obviously aren't aware of importance of Christ's fulfillment of scripture. Here's some reading for you: http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Articles/Redux/redux.html
Click to expand...

So, because we see no reason to ban gay marriage, we are encouraging homosexuality? And what are we enabling? They are already gay and living together. We have enabled nothing except the potential of their receiving the same gov't benefits straight married couple receive.
 
The default position is to maintain the definition of marriage that has evolved over 7000 years of written history: between one man and one woman. What you and your ilk have encouraged is changing current laws, so don't pretend you are innocent and have done otherwise.
 
Damn Yankee said:
The default position is to maintain the definition of marriage that has evolved over 7000 years of written history: between one man and one woman. What you and your ilk have encouraged is changing current laws, so don't pretend you are innocent and have done otherwise.
Click to expand...

So the definiton of marriage has evolved over 7,000 years, and now you demand that the evolution stop? Funny how you think you should have the authority to make such demands. This is just the next step in the evolution of the definition of marriage.

And I am not pretending anything of the kind. If you are looking for a gay marriage enabler, I will proudly wear that title.

But I am not a gay enabler. I have never enabled anyone to be gay.



The sad part is that you and your ilk think that by continuing to ban gay marriage you will somehow reduce the number of gays. It is pure insanity.
 
Evolved means that it has refined itself. The definition has never included same sex relationships.

Thinking that trying to normalize an aspect of abnormal behavior isn't enabling that behavior is retarded.

Your straw man argument is now expected.
 
Damn Yankee said:
Evolved means that it has refined itself. The definition has never included same sex relationships.

Thinking that trying to normalize an aspect of abnormal behavior isn't enabling that behavior is retarded.

Your straw man argument is now expected.
Click to expand...

Thinking that advocating the states recognition of a couple, regardless of whether they are gay or straight, is enabling homosexuality is incorrect. Arguing the point is either retarded or egotistical. Pick one.

The definition did not include different races until that was changed. The definition did not include different religions until that was changed.

No, my argument is not a strawman. I am not exaggerating anything at all. I am simply correcting your misconception that my advocacy of gay marriage is, in any way, enbling homosexuality itself.

Do you actually believe that people will "turn" gay if we legalize gay marriage?
 
This issue isn't about race- that was your straw man as predicted.

Normalizing an abnormal behavior would naturally tend to attract to adherents to that behavior.
 
Damn Yankee said:
This issue isn't about race- that was your straw man as predicted.

Normalizing an abnormal behavior would naturally tend to attract to adherents to that behavior.
Click to expand...

I never said it was about race. I simply pointed out other times that the definition of marriage "evolved".

:rofl: I cannot believe you actually posted that you think that legalizing gay marriage would have people turning gay. lmao

SM, whether you have noticed from under your white hood, gays are already accepted by society.
 
SM, do you think the religious restrictions against homosexuality should have anything to do with the laws concerning legalizing gay marriage or not?
 
Damn Yankee said:
Again the racist insinuation, per usual when you lose an argument.
Click to expand...

Per usual? lol

When I lose an argument to you we will be able to talk about what is "usual". Since that hasn't happened.....

I didn't intend it as racist, per se. I was addressing your closedmindedness. But if you want to see it otherwise, I'm ok with that too.
 
Damn Yankee said:
Your reference is wrong because the bible states that homosexuality is an abomination- it doesn't parse words like your "scholars" have. God doesn't require that someone be harmed for a sin to have occurred. :)
Click to expand...

How the fuck do you know what God requires? Have you talked to him recently? Does he call you on the phone, or appear to you in bed. I don't fucking believe what you believe....and you don't have the answers. The Bible is open to interpretation. Ministers interpret it differently , every Sunday morning...sometimes after they had sinned the night before. Your connection to God isn't stronger than my connection. The Bible's references to "homosexuality" are obscure, at best.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc1.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh4.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hombibint.htm

And don't you sin, everyday????????????????????? Or, do you see yourself as the second coming of Christ? Why is my sin more grievious than your sin?
 
Damn Yankee said:
Isn't Leviticus enough?
Click to expand...
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh3.htm
Various interpretations of Leviticus 20:13:
Conservative Christians generally interpret the passage as condemning all male homosexual activity. Some would extend it to lesbians as well. A comment on the capital punishment aspect of this passage by an Evangelical authority is:
T.Crater: stated that the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) are a covenant between God and Israel, which also set up a civil state and decreed its laws. The Christian Scriptures (New Testament) is an agreement "between God and a multinational body called the church. It is not a state, so it doesn't engage in state functions like capital punishment." 2 Thus, the death penalty called for in Leviticus 20:13 is no longer binding for Christians.
Liberal Christians Some comments on the death penalty aspect of this passage by pastors and academics taking a liberal position are:
J. Nelson: "It is grounded in the old Jewish understanding that women are less worthy than men. For a man to have sex with another man 'as with a woman' insults the other man, because women are to be treated as property." She added that this passage is not part of the 10 Commandments, but merely part of almost 600 additional rules put forth via Israel's religious leaders.
D. Bartlett: "Nobody I know, even the most conservative, is saying homosexuals should be executed. I think people who think they take the Bible literally don't take it so literally as to want to execute people."
Krister Stendahl: "If you look at the whole chapter, a lot of things come in for capital punishment that no Southern Baptist would argue that capital punishment is appropriate for. So their reading is a little selective." 2
Many religious liberals believe that this passage does not refer to all homosexual behavior, but only to a specific form of homosexual prostitution - that performed in a Pagan temple.
National Gay Pentecostal Alliance (NGPA) interpretation: They state that a word-for-word translation of this verse from the original Hebrew is:
"And a man who will lie down with a male in beds of a woman, both of them have made an abomination; dying they will die. Their blood is on them." 3

In modern English this could be translated as:

"If two men engage in homosexual sex while on a woman's bed, both have committed an abomination. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

This does not generally forbid homosexual behavior between two men. It only limits where the act can be done.
 
poet said:
How the fuck do you know what God requires? Have you talked to him recently? Does he call you on the phone, or appear to you in bed. I don't fucking believe what you believe....and you don't have the answers. The Bible is open to interpretation. ...
Click to expand...
"Abomination" doesn't require much interpretation. :)
 
poet said:
National Gay Pentecostal Alliance (NGPA) interpretation: They state that a word-for-word translation of this verse from the original Hebrew is:
"And a man who will lie down with a male in beds of a woman, both of them have made an abomination; dying they will die. Their blood is on them." 3

In modern English this could be translated as:

"If two men engage in homosexual sex while on a woman's bed, both have committed an abomination. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

This does not generally forbid homosexual behavior between two men. It only limits where the act can be done.
Click to expand...
:rofl:

That's a ssttrreettcchh!!
 
You're trying to legalize gay marriage and poet's trying to moralize gay sex. If theft became legal and moral, would you expect there to be more thieves? :)
 
Damn Yankee said:
You're trying to legalize gay marriage and poet's trying to moralize gay sex. If theft became legal and moral, would you expect there to be more thieves? :)
Click to expand...

Strawman again? So soon?

Theft is a crime because it involves one person taking what belongs to another, and one person losing their property. There is a clear victim.

Gay marriage involves no such harm and has no victim.
 
Damn Yankee said:
You're trying to legalize gay marriage and poet's trying to moralize gay sex. If theft became legal and moral, would you expect there to be more thieves? :)
Click to expand...

You're late, as usual. Gay marriage is already legal in a handful of states...more states to folllow. Gay sex is as moral as straight sex. You're one to talk about morals.
 
Social conservatives are pissing up a rope on the issue of gay marriage. Gays are not going back into the closet and are going to insist on equal standing under the law. Theirs is a logical and coherent position where as social conservatives position is emotional, illogical, defies long standing American values for personal liberty and freedom and, in their hateful and bigoted intolerance, is down right un-Christian too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top