Same Sex Marriage.....Oppose or Unoppose

[QUOTE="maheo30"]

2. My views are intensely biblical and will probably get me banned.

BlackIsle_rip

Fair enough.

However I do believe that what is written in the bible has to be interpreted as either a lesson in morality or as a lesson in ancient history. In the case of Sodom and Gomorrah I believe that it is more of a lesson in ancient history than anywhere else. Clearly it was a society that was attacked for general immoralities, and the interpretation of Sodomy (which originally used to refer to any general sin of immorality) has been manipulated to simply mean Anal Sex between two men. Of course homosexuality does not imply anal sex either.

As for the book of leviticus, well that can largely be interpreted as a book on moral hygiene before the invention of Condoms. Which is why pro-gay lobbies often quote the shellfish section as shellfish also contain a lot of parasites.

Also on the book of Leviticus, it was written during a time when there were high mortality rates and the Hebrews were under a lot of conflict from other nations. The law about no premarital or man-on-man sex was so that they would only have sex to reproduce and keep their population growing.

Obviously this is no longer applicable given that our planet is overpopulated as it is... Just another archaic law that has no meaning/use in modern society.

And your point about moral hygiene and condoms doesn't really add up... moral hygiene is different to physical hygiene... and there's nothing 'dirty' about getting it on with another man. Also, the issue of hygiene between gay men is only since the spread of HIV/AIDS in the last 20 years. So 2000 years ago up until the 20th century, there wouldn't have been any setbacks to gay sex.

[QUOTE="BlackIsle_rip"][QUOTE="maheo30"]

2. My views are intensely biblical and will probably get me banned.

Red-XIII

Fair enough.

However I do believe that what is written in the bible has to be interpreted as either a lesson in morality or as a lesson in ancient history. In the case of Sodom and Gomorrah I believe that it is more of a lesson in ancient history than anywhere else. Clearly it was a society that was attacked for general immoralities, and the interpretation of Sodomy (which originally used to refer to any general sin of immorality) has been manipulated to simply mean Anal Sex between two men. Of course homosexuality does not imply anal sex either.

As for the book of leviticus, well that can largely be interpreted as a book on moral hygiene before the invention of Condoms. Which is why pro-gay lobbies often quote the shellfish section as shellfish also contain a lot of parasites.

Also on the book of Leviticus, it was written during a time when there were high mortality rates and the Hebrews were under a lot of conflict from other nations. The law about no premarital or man-on-man sex was so that they would only have sex to reproduce and keep their population growing.

Obviously this is no longer applicable given that our planet is overpopulated as it is... Just another archaic law that has no meaning/use in modern society.

And your point about moral hygiene and condoms doesn't really add up... moral hygiene is different to physical hygiene... and there's nothing 'dirty' about getting it on with another man. Also, the issue of hygiene between gay men is only since the spread of HIV/AIDS in the last 20 years. So 2000 years ago up until the 20th century, there wouldn't have been any setbacks to gay sex.

Are we really using the bible, a book that is very personal and looked at in different ways by millions of people, as a way to judge whether gay marrige is immoral or not and whether it should be legalized?

As long as I dont hear about it, I dont really care.

but when they start trying to adopt children.......well........well that really bites my biscuits.

Honestly could care less... :|

[QUOTE="BlackIsle_rip"][QUOTE="maheo30"]

2. My views are intensely biblical and will probably get me banned.

Red-XIII

Fair enough.

However I do believe that what is written in the bible has to be interpreted as either a lesson in morality or as a lesson in ancient history. In the case of Sodom and Gomorrah I believe that it is more of a lesson in ancient history than anywhere else. Clearly it was a society that was attacked for general immoralities, and the interpretation of Sodomy (which originally used to refer to any general sin of immorality) has been manipulated to simply mean Anal Sex between two men. Of course homosexuality does not imply anal sex either.

As for the book of leviticus, well that can largely be interpreted as a book on moral hygiene before the invention of Condoms. Which is why pro-gay lobbies often quote the shellfish section as shellfish also contain a lot of parasites.

Also on the book of Leviticus, it was written during a time when there were high mortality rates and the Hebrews were under a lot of conflict from other nations. The law about no premarital or man-on-man sex was so that they would only have sex to reproduce and keep their population growing.

Obviously this is no longer applicable given that our planet is overpopulated as it is... Just another archaic law that has no meaning/use in modern society.

And your point about moral hygiene and condoms doesn't really add up... moral hygiene is different to physical hygiene... and there's nothing 'dirty' about getting it on with another man. Also, the issue of hygiene between gay men is only since the spread of HIV/AIDS in the last 20 years. So 2000 years ago up until the 20th century, there wouldn't have been any setbacks to gay sex.

==However, the difference is that these morals are based on the words of a supposedly divine being. If he finds some act moral one moment, because of the fact that he is perfect, he will always find it commendable.

But then, the idea of an objectively perfect being fails anyways, so the entire argument falls apart at the seams.

I don't care aslong as guys don't show their affection in public, that's gross.-R3Vo

I don't care aslong as guys don't show their affection in public, that's gross.-R3Vo

Double standards FTL:|

All couples have the right to be miserable together, regerdless of sexual orientation. Who am I to say otherwise?

Hallenbeck77

Agreed

[QUOTE="-R3Vo"]I don't care aslong as guys don't show their affection in public, that's gross.Film-Guy

Double standards FTL:|

Nah, not really, they can do all their lovey dovey stuff at home behind closed doors.

[QUOTE="-R3Vo"]I don't care aslong as guys don't show their affection in public, that's gross.KittyKat

My face is not gross, but if we apply this to the right people yea sure. Public indecency is a crime.

I say not until people are more tolerant to homosexuality.Zaeryn

My face is not gross, but if we apply this to the right people yea sure. Public indecency is a crime.

-R3Vo

Then I will assume you are against all forms of public affection on display, including that of heterosexual couples.

[QUOTE="-R3Vo"]

My face is not gross, but if we apply this to the right people yea sure. Public indecency is a crime.

KittyKat

Then I will assume you are against all forms of public affection on display, including that of heterosexual couples.

Not at all.

Nah, not really, they can do all their lovey dovey stuff at home behind closed doors.-R3Vo

[QUOTE="Film-Guy"]

[QUOTE="-R3Vo"]I don't care aslong as guys don't show their affection in public, that's gross.-R3Vo

Double standards FTL:|

Nah, not really, they can do all their lovey dovey stuff at home behind closed doors.

==I assume you will at the very least reciprocate? If lip-locking between those of the same sex is indecent in public, why not those of different sex?

Likewise, why does your opinion count for more than another? If another disagrees with you, are they incorrect for doing so? Why or why not?

i would like that all F** in the world dies i F***** hate gays dantesergei

==I've always found it astounding a person could be raised to hate something so much for no other reason than just being.

Pathetic.

[QUOTE="Film-Guy"]

[QUOTE="-R3Vo"]I don't care aslong as guys don't show their affection in public, that's gross.-R3Vo

Double standards FTL:|

Nah, not really, they can do all their lovey dovey stuff at home behind closed doors.

[QUOTE="-R3Vo"]I don't care aslong as guys don't show their affection in public, that's gross.KittyKat

My face is not gross, but if we apply this to the right people yea sure. Public indecency is a crime.

If they have to do their stuff behind closed doors, so should other non gay couples. Its only fair.

i dont know if its actual news but people say massachusets will not outlaw it, they will legalize it.

well its their choice i cannot do anything about it.

i oppose same sex marriage but i am for same sex civil unionsinyourface_12

Theres not really a huge difference...

[QUOTE="KittyKat"][QUOTE="-R3Vo"]

My face is not gross, but if we apply this to the right people yea sure. Public indecency is a crime.

-R3Vo

Then I will assume you are against all forms of public affection on display, including that of heterosexual couples.

Not at all.

Why cant they make up their own ritual! marrage is ours. Copyright'D!!!

I'm against it obviously becuase whats next you can marry your dog? And anal sex is unhealthy. :|

I oppose marriage between anyone.

No, not really... but I'm probably never going to feel like I need to get married to show my affection. Of course homosexuals can get married, why should they be stopped because of a preference?