|
|
#11
02-29-2004, 10:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Article for those opposed to gay marriage
[ QUOTE ]
My religious beliefs are that all gays will be eternally damned for their lifestyle. [/ QUOTE ] Since when is the sin of homosexuality eternally damning? Your above statement makes one of two assumptions: 1. Homosexuality is a sin that unforgivable and is in a class separate from all other sins, or 2. Anyone who is wrong about a sincle moral issue is doomed to hell, because unless we recognize all our sins and repent we will go to hell. It's hard not to assume you are referring to Christian doctrine, but if you are your comment is completely wrong, and EXTREMELY dangerous. 
|
|
#12
02-29-2004, 01:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Article for those opposed to gay marriage
I am a Christian. I try very hard to live my life in a Christian manner. To try to answer your 2 points:
1. No sin is unforgivable. A person can commit any sin (homosexual or otherwise) and be forgiven and still enter heaven. However, my belief is that in order to be forgiven, one must be repentant, so you cannot merely ask for forgiveness and then have a free pass. You must recognize your sin, ask for forgiveness, and change your life so that you do not continue in sin. 2. Being right or wrong about a moral issue has nothing to do with a person going to heaven. As I stated above, you are correct that a person that does not recognize their sin and repent is going to hell. That doesn't apply just for homosexuals, that applies to all of us. How is my comment wrong? Enlighten me.
|
|
#13
02-29-2004, 08:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Article for those opposed to gay marriage
[ QUOTE ]
I want to thank all of the pro-gay marriage posters for helping me look at more than one side of the issue [/ QUOTE ] damn - i meant redneck zealots not reasonable thinking supporters of no gay marriage stripsqueez - chickenhawk
|
|
#14
02-29-2004, 08:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Article for those opposed to gay marriage
[ QUOTE ]
I think most of the posters on these forums are more liberal [/ QUOTE ] Well, socially liberal maybe, but if uncle sam wants a piece of my hard earned BB/Hr, he can go to hell [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]
|
|
#15
03-01-2004, 06:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Then you would also agree?
Then you would also agree that sisters and brothers should be able to marry? Let's say in a totally non-sexual relationship mainly to be able to enjoy the benefits of one's health plan at work or for some legal reason like buying a house or adopting a kid together.
Personally I am not opposed to civil unions for these purposes.
|
|
#16
03-01-2004, 10:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Then you would also agree?
not sure i would go that far, but i don't care if gays or lesbians do.
al
|
|
#18
03-01-2004, 11:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Then you would also agree?
The marriage, or the bearing of children? The Egyptian pharoahs married and had children with their sisters or half sisters for centuries. Personally, I think it is the marriage and bearing disabled children and leaving them for other people to care for and allowing the suffering of innocent children. I do not believe it should affect deciding who should be allowed a tax break, or who should be allowed to make decisions for a person who is incapacitated. Haven't thought through completely, but the examples above made me think that perhaps there really isn't a hard and fast rule, but the outcome that we judge.
|
|
#19
03-02-2004, 03:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Then you would also agree?
I completely agree but this is my argument for the ones that agree with gay marriage.
Why not allow two bachelor brothers that have inheritted their family farm and will live out the rest of their days to get married for legal conveinance? What is wrong with it if marriage is basically a contract?
|
|
#20
03-02-2004, 07:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Then you would also agree?
[ QUOTE ]
I completely agree but this is my argument for the ones that agree with gay marriage. Why not allow two bachelor brothers that have inheritted their family farm and will live out the rest of their days to get married for legal conveinance? What is wrong with it if marriage is basically a contract? [/ QUOTE ] not much of an argument in my view just because relationships are hard to define is not a good reason to discriminate against the ones that fall outside the "usual" definition - plainly the definition used would be open to criticism or abuse - same as any law gay people often live in relationships that are equal (in all ways relevant to your argument) to heterosexual relationships which you call marriage stripsqueez - chickenhawk
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
