Rational discussion on Gay Marriage

God's laws are God's laws. Christians can't change them or modify them to fit what society says is acceptable. I think Christians are "tolerant" (ie we don't kill or harm people for their sin like many religions around the world), but we do not accept immorality as being moral.

 

dang you beat me to it, good job

 

true... blue

 

By whom? Conventional thought. For the same reason that the color "red" is called red. By mutual acceptance and use of the word "red" to describe things that are "red" in color.

Your conventional use of a term does not equate to that being the universal acceptance.

Face it. You continue to try to instill a moral judgement based on your morality into laws governing citizens of a nation whose constitution should protect against that. Just because you are vocal, even perceive that your view is the most popular, that doesn't make it right.

 

So you are still picking and choosing what is an acceptable definition of marriage while still leaving some forms of marriage as unacceptable. My direct question to those that support same-sex marriage is do you also support other forms of marriage (polygamy, marrying within the family, etc)? If not, why not?

 

But you do pick and choose what is and is not acceptable, from all those things that are listed in God's word.

 

I agree with you. I think polygamy should be allowed as well. It's certainly allowed in the Bible.

No. I am not gay, and I have a real big Silverado that will take you out as you're riding your skateboard across the street.

Defined by whom?

How convenient. That question is above your paygrade, but the question of homosexuality isn't.

I was told there was a difference between "seafood" and "fish" (personally I eat neither), so let me be more specific, the Bible forbids you from eating shrimp and lobster, and other such foods:

And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.

Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
Leviticus 11:10-12

 

None of the others has anything to do with it, each one should be considered on its own merits.

 

So on one hand you argue for "equal rights" and on the other we must weigh the "merits" of each type of marriage. You can't have it both ways!!!

 

The current discussion is about same sex marriage. If you would like to start a discussion about other types of marriage, feel free to do so. If you have valid reasons to oppose same sex marriage, without reference to other topics, please feel free to state those reasons.

 

Why won't you answer the question?

 

Because that question is totally irrelevant to this discussion.

 

His question is not irrelevant at all as long as we are talking about other humans. If marriage can be between 2 people of the same sex, why can't it be between 3 people?

 

Do you find it impossible to say what is wrong with gay marriage without reference to some unrelated hypothetical situation?

 

Less government intrusion! That's what I want.

Sherry

 

Now there's something we CAN agree on.

 

Exactly.

 

Just humor me and answer the question.

 

Okay. So let them marry and get on with life.

Sherry

 

the actions began in 1970 and had cleared all of the legal hurdles to be enacted in 1975 according to your reference.

Bob Jones University, because of its interpretation of Biblical principles, denied "admission to applicants engaged in an interracial marriage or known to advocate interracial marriage or dating." The University had received a ruling letter in 1942, confirming its tax exempt status.

The University was notified November 30, 1970 that the IRS was planning on revoking their tax exempt status as a "religious, charitable . . . or educational" institution. In response, the University filed suit in 1971 in Bob Jones University v. Schultz.

<snip>

The IRS again notified the University on April 16, 1975 of the proposed revocation. Officially, the IRS revoked the University's tax exempt status on January 19, 1976. The University paid $21 in unemployment taxes for one employee for tax year 1975 and then filed for a refund in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. The Government counterclaimed for unpaid federal unemployment taxes for the taxable years 1971 through 1975, in the amount of $489,675.59, plus interest.