Time for a Truth Slap

christiefan915 said:
It's the 21st century, get with the program.

mar·riage
   /ˈmærɪdʒ/ Show Spelled[mar-ij] Show IPA
noun
1.
a.
the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. Antonyms: separation.
b.
a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage. Antonyms: separation.
2.
the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage. Synonyms: matrimony. Antonyms: single life, bachelorhood, spinsterhood, singleness; separation.
3.
the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage. Synonyms: nuptials, marriage ceremony, wedding. Antonyms: divorce, annulment.
4.
a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage.
5.
any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song. Synonyms: blend, merger, unity, oneness; alliance, confederation. Antonyms: separation, division, disunion, schism.
Click to expand...

Thanks for proving my point. It's all about definition. The part about same sex has been added recently. Why don't you give us the link.
 
Damocles said:
I don't remember my choice day. I always liked girls, always. There was never even a "cootie" moment for me. Other boys might play the cootie game but I liked girls and never played that. Seriously, when did you sit and decide that you were going to be "straight"? How long did it take for you to make the choice? Did you agonize over it? Did you look at Bob, then at Charissa, then back to Bob and say, "Geez, I just don't know which one excites me!"?

Let's say the roles were reversed and the bible said that you should be gay, would you even be able to get it up for some dude or would you be relegated to the role of bottom?

I'll never get people who think that gay men just "decided" to like the hairy grossly shaped man body.

I'll be frank. I've never been able to look at a guy and say, "Wow, he's good looking!" I can't. I don't know what girls see in us, but THANK THE GODS they see something that they like when they look at that no-hipped wrongly curved body!
Click to expand...

Your story is familiar to me in that I always like girls as well. My first crush was my kindergarten teacher: tall, long black hair, impossibly high cheek bones, clear, olive skin and a native American ancestry. So there was never any decision to make.

Your theoretical Bible question is rather silly. The premise is that homosexuality is natural, like some odd alternative universe. It makes no sense since the purpose of sex in sentient beings is procreation.

I can see how guys are good looking with respect to the opposite sex. Go through the list of leading men in films. There was a PBS documentary years ago on beauty and it is correlated with perceptions of health, regardless of sex. Symmetric features, strong bone structure, clear complexion, perfect teeth, good muscle tone. Its not hard to tell when a man as these attributes, but that's not the same as physical attraction. For that, the subject's features have to support your natural desire to procreate. That natural desire exists even if you are opposed to having children, because that opposition is a learned trait.
 
DamnYankee said:
Your theoretical Bible question is rather silly. The premise is that homosexuality is natural, like some odd alternative universe. It makes no sense since the purpose of sex in sentient beings is procreation.
Click to expand...

You have what, two children?
So you had sex twice in your whole life?
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
My point is that homosexuality was looked on very differently in the 60s to now, well except for some parts of the South where their mindset is still in the 1860s not the 1960s.
Click to expand...

WOW really??? Like I said the church he was "trained in and minister of" still see homosexuality as sin. I merely responded to other(s) who assumed what MLK would support or not support. You do know what an opinion is- don't you? I like other(s) in this thread shared mine.
 
Scientifically that would be a brain malfunction. That's what happens when you have a stoke, part of your brain dies. Obviously he's no longer normal.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
It actually proves the opposite more like, his brain rewired itself and made new neural connections. Your reason for thinking otherwise is not based in science but pure prejudice.
Click to expand...

Nope. The brain has been damaged by a stroke, not re-wired. Now you're being silly.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
wouldn't the children he raised be a better representation of his beliefs than his wife?......
Click to expand...

That is certainly debatable, though compare your parents religious beliefs to your own. I would guess that most couples are closer in what they believe than the generational difference. That said, you have a valid point of debate. As does ID. It is a matter of opinion. None of us know for sure. I just find it hard to believe a man who championed an end to discrimination against blacks would turn around and discriminate against another person. I could be wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top