How does gay marriage hurt you ?

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: pdqcarrera
The penis and vagina were designed (or evolved) for each other and the anus designed for waste exhaust. Do you dispute this?

LMAO! Sometimes you just have to spell it out for people.

 

[jjzelinski]

So your argument is based in part on evolutions role in physiological functionality? Ok, the penis exists for procreation withthe vagine. Sounds good to me. But what about all of our other phyiologcal characteristics that have simply not evolved at the pace of our civilization?

Hair is designed to retain warmth, in our society we now tend to depend on clothing of our construction for warmth. Does that makes clothing immoral since it defies our present state of physiological evolution? The same can be said of finger nails, etc. What I'm getting at is that you're justifying your position of denying equal rights to a segment of our popultion on the basis of evolutionary necessity; we weren't designed for anal sex. Well we were designed to ride in air planes for 18 hours either, does that make it immoral?

I'm fine with you electing not to engage in homosexuality, I'm of the same persuasion, but exactly why is it YOUR business what any other adult does with themselves provided you or anyone isn't HURT by that activity? Shouldn't that be left to the relationship between them and god? Are you God? If so, i repent and I will say anything you want so you don't banish me to !heyal! but otherwise know your role and back off.

 

[pdqcarrera]

Originally posted by: espressoman

Originally posted by: TravisT

That is irrelevent. My point is is that no one forced our opinions on you. Obviously, the majority in the 11 States who banned gay marriage felt it was immoral. I stand behind my vote regardless of if you feel i'm wrong or not.

How is it irrelevent? You don't seem to be forcing the opinion of denying interracial marriages... but you don't because we got over that hill... why can't you get over this one? I'm trying to point out that what the majority thinks, isn't always morally correct. If you are making laws to ban gay marriage, you might as well make laws to ban interracial marriage, ban smoking, ban the sale of alcohol, ban free thinking, ban television, ban MTV, ban Howard Stern, ban teaching evolution in schools, ban the sale of firearms, etc.. etc.. etc...

Your obvious point "...what the majority thinks, isn't always morally correct..." is understood, but you really should just leave it at that because so much else in your argument is frankly quite silly. Every society legislates what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior in order to create, and/or maintain the culture they want to live within. Like, DUH! You can't argue against that, it's life man. Are you an anarchist?

You apparently are comfortable with homosexuals becoming totally mainstream ... 100% equals. You have the right to feel this way and I don't know anybody that would say otherwise. Unfortunately you are apparently unwilling to accept a counter viewpoint and unwilling to accept we have the right to exercise our right to legislate accordingly.

BTW-- what's your stance on beastiality, child pornography and polygamy?
Do we have a right to legislate morality regarding these subjects?

 

[espressoman]

Originally posted by: dnuggett

I in no way said it infringes on my rights. I said it infringes on my belief system and forces me to recognize something that I do not believe in, as legally valid. So to that extent, I will disagree with anyone who says that that gays should be allowed to marry. They should be allowed the same legal rights that a man and a woman are allowed when they marry. That, in a nutshell what the 14th Amendment says they should receive. It is no way says that we must call it marriage.

Your idea of marriage and your belief that it is protected under the 14th amendment is the very, very weak arguemnt here.

We already tried the "separate but equal" thing... we see how well that went.

 

[pdqcarrera]

Originally posted by: gutharius

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: polm

Originally posted by: ntdz
they don't hurt me. how does some inner city kid not having health insurance hurt you? It's the same thing.

what kind of analogy is that ?

I'm not voting to ban healthcare for inner city youth.

Simple. You are for national healthcare, yet it probably won't even affect you. Why are you for it if it won't affect you?

I am for it because I know there are people out their who are suffering because they cannot afford quality healthcare and I as a Human being with a sense of compassion for my fellow man feel it is my duty and obligation to lift everyone up not just the few select who can afford to be lifted up.

But this thread is not about health care, it is about "How does gay marriage hurt you?" and your statment, "Why are you for it if it won't affect you?" proves this threads point. Two gay men or two gay women getting married does not hurt you.

Ultimatly this proves the whole resistance towards gay marriage to be nothing more than a issue that has been turned from an equality issue to a issue of hate that is preached across the nation. I am concerned those who say it does not hurt them yet still support banning gay marriage may be blind to the ultimate fact that they support an issue purely because of HATE, FEAR, and PERSONAL BIGOTRY.

You don't fix healthcare problems by adjusting the moral compass a society has set in place regarding acceptance, or not, of homosexuality. Too different subjects entirely.

If the institution of marriage is redefined to the point where it changes the original intent then this effects all those who honor and value that original intent of marriage. You don't have to agree at all in the moral ideal, but if you are a minority viewpoint don't expect for YOUR moral ideals to control that of the overwhelming majority.

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: pdqcarrera

Originally posted by: gutharius

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: polm

Originally posted by: ntdz
they don't hurt me. how does some inner city kid not having health insurance hurt you? It's the same thing.

what kind of analogy is that ?

I'm not voting to ban healthcare for inner city youth.

Simple. You are for national healthcare, yet it probably won't even affect you. Why are you for it if it won't affect you?

I am for it because I know there are people out their who are suffering because they cannot afford quality healthcare and I as a Human being with a sense of compassion for my fellow man feel it is my duty and obligation to lift everyone up not just the few select who can afford to be lifted up.

But this thread is not about health care, it is about "How does gay marriage hurt you?" and your statment, "Why are you for it if it won't affect you?" proves this threads point. Two gay men or two gay women getting married does not hurt you.

Ultimatly this proves the whole resistance towards gay marriage to be nothing more than a issue that has been turned from an equality issue to a issue of hate that is preached across the nation. I am concerned those who say it does not hurt them yet still support banning gay marriage may be blind to the ultimate fact that they support an issue purely because of HATE, FEAR, and PERSONAL BIGOTRY.

You don't fix healthcare problems by adjusting the moral compass a society has set in place regarding acceptance, or not, of homosexuality. Too different subjects entirely.

If the institution of marriage is redefined to the point where it changes the original intent then this effects all those who honor and value that original intent of marriage. You don't have to agree at all in the moral ideal, but if you are a minority viewpoint don't expect for YOUR moral ideals to control that of the overwhelming majority.

You baffle me, I just don't see how you can draw your conclusions and stand by them as if they were logical!

Fix healthcare?! If that's one of your justifications I needn't comment on that at all. That's the most baseless, tangential, and idiotic thing I've heard all day.

As far as the "institution" of mariage goes, not all marriages are religious in nature and therefore religion should have no bearing on mariage outside of the Church. Fact. Fin. Period. End of discussion.

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: conjur
That argument just doesn't make any sense. Atheists can get married. Sterile couples can get married. Mentally retarded people can get married. So why not consenting adults who happen to be gay?

because weather you like it or not, marriage means 1 man + 1 woman. no ifs ands or buts.
i imagine that the aethiests, retards, sterile people, etc.. arent gay.

Whether they are gay or not doesn't matter. The 14th Amendment guarantees Equal Protection.

no, the 14th Amendment says that the rights and priveleges of US citizens shall not be abridged, gays arent entitled to the privilege of marriage, so, yes it does matter that they are gay.

 

[pdqcarrera]

Originally posted by: jjzelinski
So your argument is based in part on evolutions role in physiological functionality? Ok, the penis exists for procreation withthe vagine. Sounds good to me. But what about all of our other phyiologcal characteristics that have simply not evolved at the pace of our civilization?

Hair is designed to retain warmth, in our society we now tend to depend on clothing of our construction for warmth. Does that makes clothing immoral since it defies our present state of physiological evolution? The same can be said of finger nails, etc. What I'm getting at is that you're justifying your position of denying equal rights to a segment of our popultion on the basis of evolutionary necessity; we weren't designed for anal sex. Well we were designed to ride in air planes for 18 hours either, does that make it immoral?

I'm fine with you electing not to engage in homosexuality, I'm of the same persuasion, but exactly why is it YOUR business what any other adult does with themselves provided you or anyone isn't HURT by that activity? Shouldn't that be left to the relationship between them and god? Are you God? If so, i repent and I will say anything you want so you don't banish me to !heyal! but otherwise know your role and back off.

Whew you sure can stretch and twist a point ... were you a gymnast sometime in your life? LOL ;-)
IMHO none of your examples have any correlation with changing physiological functionality I referenced being tied to coupling humans in marriage. What defines morality for most of us is what God established. I thought this was a pretty simple concept to understand but apparently not. I'm not demanding you agree. I'm just voting to keep the culture I want intact for the society I choose to live in. This is my right. I don't have to be God to honor God's wishes. I don't condemn, hate or judge homosexual people at all. BUT I will not accept their behavior as being normal and on an equal footing with the sexuality we were designed for. What you do behind closed doors is between you and God, or whatever. But if you expect me to accept it out in the open as an equal lifestyle choice then you've got a fight on your hands.

 

[espressoman]

From an old article:
----
The state of Alabama continues to ban black-white marriages, although the issue comes up for vote in the year 2000. Legally, the Alabama law runs counter to a U.S. Supreme Court decision, so the state's ban is technically unconstitutional. State laws keeping interracial marriages illegal survived the changes of the Civil Rights Movement. They were finally overturned by the case of Loving v. Virginia, which was decided by the highest court in 1967 after nine years of trials and appeals. The case concerned an interracial couple who had been arrested in 1958 for being married. A Virginia judge ruled that "God did not intend for the races to mix."

At the time of the 1967 Loving decision, sixteen Southern states prohibited marriage across the color line. Surprisingly, other states had only recently removed the ban: South Dakota in 1957, Nevada in 1958, California in 1959, Arizona in 1960, Nebraska in 1963, Indiana in 1965, and Maryland in 1967. It seems clear that although white America, after enormous pressure, was willing to go along with the desegregation of public schools, transportation, and the voting booth, tolerance for racial integration did not extend to personal relationships.

Only about one per cent of American marriages are currently between African Americans and Euro-Americans. The number is on the increase, however, especially in the military, one of the few institutions where young people of different backgrounds are thrown together on equal terms.
----

"God did not intend for the races to mix" == "God did not intend for gays to mix"

Perhaps we should just round up all the homosexuals in the country and put them in interment camps like we did to the Japanese in the 1940's.

Most people who are afraid of homosexuals, are usually homosexual themself; hence their insecurity of knowning how they feel makes them lash out.

 

[pdqcarrera]

Originally posted by: jjzelinski

Originally posted by: pdqcarrera

Originally posted by: gutharius

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: polm

Originally posted by: ntdz
they don't hurt me. how does some inner city kid not having health insurance hurt you? It's the same thing.

what kind of analogy is that ?

I'm not voting to ban healthcare for inner city youth.

Simple. You are for national healthcare, yet it probably won't even affect you. Why are you for it if it won't affect you?

I am for it because I know there are people out their who are suffering because they cannot afford quality healthcare and I as a Human being with a sense of compassion for my fellow man feel it is my duty and obligation to lift everyone up not just the few select who can afford to be lifted up.

But this thread is not about health care, it is about "How does gay marriage hurt you?" and your statment, "Why are you for it if it won't affect you?" proves this threads point. Two gay men or two gay women getting married does not hurt you.

Ultimatly this proves the whole resistance towards gay marriage to be nothing more than a issue that has been turned from an equality issue to a issue of hate that is preached across the nation. I am concerned those who say it does not hurt them yet still support banning gay marriage may be blind to the ultimate fact that they support an issue purely because of HATE, FEAR, and PERSONAL BIGOTRY.

You don't fix healthcare problems by adjusting the moral compass a society has set in place regarding acceptance, or not, of homosexuality. Too different subjects entirely.

If the institution of marriage is redefined to the point where it changes the original intent then this effects all those who honor and value that original intent of marriage. You don't have to agree at all in the moral ideal, but if you are a minority viewpoint don't expect for YOUR moral ideals to control that of the overwhelming majority.

You baffle me, I just don't see how you can draw your conclusions and stand by them as if they were logical!

Fix healthcare?! If that's one of your justifications I needn't comment on that at all. That's the most baseless, tangential, and idiotic thing I've heard all day.

As far as the "institution" of mariage goes, not all marriages are religious in nature and therefore religion should have no bearing on mariage outside of the Church. Fact. Fin. Period. End of discussion.

I do indeed believe you are baffled because you cannot even follow the simplest thread...
Wasn't it you that just wrote: "I am for it because I know there are people out their who are suffering because they cannot afford quality healthcare"...?? Or was that your left hand typing while your right hand was busy elsewhere? Scratching your head no doubt! It is YOU that made healthcare a JUSTIFICATION of your position, NOT ME! GEEEEESH.

Just because marriage has been diluted from its religious roots doesn't mean I should automatically be willing to throw the whole institution into the trashcan. I'm in the overwhelming majority. You're in the underwhelming minority. Fact. Fin. Period. End of discussion.

 

[espressoman]

Originally posted by: pdqcarrera

I do indeed believe you are baffled because you cannot even follow the simplest thread...
Wasn't it you that just wrote: "I am for it because I know there are people out their who are suffering because they cannot afford quality healthcare"...?? Or was that your left hand typing while your right hand was busy elsewhere? Scratching your head no doubt! It is YOU that made healthcare a JUSTIFICATION of your position, NOT ME! GEEEEESH.

Just because marriage has been diluted from its religious roots doesn't mean I should automatically be willing to throw the whole institution into the trashcan. I'm in the overwhelming majority. You're in the underwhelming minority. Fact. Fin. Period. End of discussion.

The overwhelming majority in Germany thought killing all the Jews was going to solve their economic trouble.

The overwhelming majority in Russia thought it was right to kill their Czar and convert to Communism.

The overwhelming majority in Spain thought torturing and killing anyone who wasn't a Christian would solve their problems.

The overwhelming majority in Rome thought a crusade attacking the Jews and Muslims in was going to get back their Holy Land.

The overwhelming majority in Rome thought it was right to kill the self proclaimed "King of the Jews".

I think you can see a pattern here....

 

[jjzelinski]

Ok there inspector gadget, peruse the posts a little more closely next time before you start beating your head against a birck wall again. I was not the one to write what you attributed to me.

But despite my intended conclusion of my participation in this thread, I just want to point out one more thing. Technically, you're already waaaaay to late. Marriage has been ratified outside of the church in this country for many, many years now. So why not continue banning the infedels from your holllowed grounds and leave them to their own devices in every single court house in America or Las Vegas if you prefer.

 

[espressoman]

Originally posted by: jjzelinski
Ok there inspector gadget, peruse the posts a little more closely next time before you start beating your head against a birck wall again. I was not the one to write what you attributed to me.

But despite my intended conclusion of my participation in this thread, I just want to point out one more thing. Technically, you're already waaaaay to late. Marriage has been ratified outside of the church in this country for many, many years now. So why not continue banning the infedels from your holllowed grounds and leave them to their own devices in every single court house in America or Las Vegas if you prefer.

Exactly. I could go to Reno, Nevada. Legally pay for sex with a hooker. Take that hooker that same day to Las Vegas, get married through a drive-thru chapel... spend the night in a nice hotel room with all her hooker friends... and then, the next day, get a divorce for the place right next to where I drove threw to get married!

 

[Alistar7]

I don't think a gay man and his lover should be given equal rights like a married couple, even if they have been together for 40+ years. When one of them is in the hospital dying and only "family" is allowed to visit, his "spouse" should not be able to see him before he dies, how dare they ask for such special rights......

 

[13rian]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
I don't think a gay man and his lover should be given equal rights like a married couple, even if they have been together for 40+ years. When one of them is in the hospital dying and only "family" is allowed to visit, his "spouse" should not be able to see him before he dies, how dare they ask for such special rights......

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but isn't this equivalent to a husband and wife? Are you saying a husband can't see her dying wife, or visa versa; only family members? Isn't the respect of allowing people to see another for their last moments on Earth due to their respect of love and intimacy?

 

[espressoman]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
I don't think a gay man and his lover should be given equal rights like a married couple, even if they have been together for 40+ years. When one of them is in the hospital dying and only "family" is allowed to visit, his "spouse" should not be able to see him before he dies, how dare they ask for such special rights......

What gets me, is how people think it's going to cost them money to allow gay marriages. Think about it, from an economic staindpoint:

Gay marriages = more revenue = more consumer spending = more tax revenue collected.

Even if 1% of the population is gay, and they all get married, that is going to put a lot more money in everyone's pockets. More into bridal shower gifts, wedding gifts, hotel rentals, tux rentals, dress rentals, venue rentals, and all the other things used for weddings. These companies then have more revenue incoming, therefore they will be taxed more, which generates more tax revenue for the government. Fairly simple economics. Especially when Gay people generally have more expendable income.

There are plenty of things that my tax money goes to, that I don't want it to go to. Heck, I don't have kids yet.. why should I be paying taxes for other peoples education? I don't want my tax money to go to the $50 trillion or whatever crazy amount is spent for military spending!

I have yet to see a valid reason to why gay people shouldn't gay married that doesn't involve fear/misunderstanding, biggotry or religous fundementalism.

 

[13rian]

I don't even see how money can be an issue to civil rights unless someone's moralities tend towards greed:thumbsdown:

Edit: Is it me or is there some type of parrallel with that and what Bush is doing, after revised statements on Iraq and Saddam's tyranny?

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: conjur
That argument just doesn't make any sense. Atheists can get married. Sterile couples can get married. Mentally retarded people can get married. So why not consenting adults who happen to be gay?

because weather you like it or not, marriage means 1 man + 1 woman. no ifs ands or buts.
i imagine that the aethiests, retards, sterile people, etc.. arent gay.

Whether they are gay or not doesn't matter. The 14th Amendment guarantees Equal Protection.

no, the 14th Amendment says that the rights and priveleges of US citizens shall not be abridged, gays arent entitled to the privilege of marriage, so, yes it does matter that they are gay.

Marriage is a legal contract, like any other. Banning same sex marriage violates the right of equal protection in legal contracts based on gender in the same way that banning interracial marriages violates equal protection based on race, so yes the 14th amendment is violated by banning same sex marriage.

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

Originally posted by: jjzelinski
Hair is designed to retain warmth, in our society we now tend to depend on clothing of our construction for warmth. Does that makes clothing immoral since it defies our present state of physiological evolution? The same can be said of finger nails, etc. What I'm getting at is that you're justifying your position of denying equal rights to a segment of our popultion on the basis of evolutionary necessity; we weren't designed for anal sex. Well we were designed to ride in air planes for 18 hours either, does that make it immoral?

That's a pretty big stretch. Almost as stupid as whoever it was that suggested the left side of the road thing.

Originally posted by: Alistar7
I don't think a gay man and his lover should be given equal rights like a married couple, even if they have been together for 40+ years. When one of them is in the hospital dying and only "family" is allowed to visit, his "spouse" should not be able to see him before he dies, how dare they ask for such special rights......

 

[assemblage]

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: assemblage
Privledges aren't rights. I'd like to file my income tax individual instead of married jointly.

And you can....???
Marriage is a not a right it is a privilege.

I can't file my taxes individually. It's granted to individuals and not to married people. I have to file married filing seperately. It costs me $$ every year. That's discrimination!!!!!

Homosexual marriage is not a civil rights issue. Race has no bearing on marriage, while gender has fundamental bearing upon what marriage is. It's not discrimination issue. Requiring marriage to be between a man and a women applies for everyone. This is a recognition issue of a small minority who demands that everyone view homsexuality as normal and acceptable behavior.

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: assemblage

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: assemblage
Privledges aren't rights. I'd like to file my income tax individual instead of married jointly.

And you can....???
Marriage is a not a right it is a privilege.

I can't file my taxes individually. It's granted to individuals and not to married people. I have to file married filing seperately. It costs me $$ every year. That's discrimination!!!!!

Homosexual marriage is not a civil rights issue. Race has no bearing on marriage, while gender has fundamental bearing upon what marriage is. It's not discrimination issue. Requiring marriage to be between a man and a women applies for everyone. This is a recognition issue of a small minority who demands that everyone view homsexuality as normal and acceptable behavior.

I wouldn't expect that coming from you. (based on what I've read recently)

 

[Red Dawn]

Rob9874, the only way Gay Marriage would hurt you is if you were the Bride and you forgot to pack a tube of astro lube for the Honeymoon!

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: assemblage
Homosexual marriage is not a civil rights issue. Race has no bearing on marriage, while gender has fundamental bearing upon what marriage is.

No, it doesn't. There's no part of the contract that someone of either gender cannot fulfill. It is unjustifiable discrimination.

It's not discrimination issue. Requiring marriage to be between a man and a women applies for everyone.

Requiring that the two parties in a marriage be of the same race applies to everyone too, but it's still unconstitutional discrimination.

 

[assemblage]

Originally posted by: Rob9874
I wouldn't expect that coming from you. (based on what I've read recently)

Lol, I'm not gay 😉 Thanks for reading my posts, but no I'm not for same sex marriages/unions. I do not think homosexuality is a lifestyle that should be promoted. Same sex marriages/unions grants legitimacy to homosexuality and gives it status as a normal and acceptable behavior. I think homosexuals should be allowed to pursue their lifestyle without punishment, but I do not feel they have a right to demand marriage.

I also think same sex marriages devalues conventional marriage and family. This is dangerous since I also believe that marriage and family are building blocks of civilization. I do not think that same sex marriages will destroy civilization, but it does more harm than good.

Race has nothing to do with what marriage fundamentally is, a union between a man and a woman. Gender fundamentally changes that. As a contract the discrimination/civil rights argument does not work because the contract is defined as between a man and woman. As a social contract, it's been this way for centuries. It is not between people of the same sex. As a contract, the definition, application, and restrictions apply to everyone. Many people have loving relationships, such as fraternity brothers, cousins, people married to other people and roommates. Why should homosexuals be given preferential treatment just because there is sex involved?

To say strictly defining marriage as between a man and a women is discriminatory, then traditional marriage is invalidated. Marriages no longer really exist at that point because any relationship can be a marriage because any restriction would be discriminatory.

 

[drpootums]

Originally posted by: bay

Originally posted by: drpootums
well, the bible is against it, and that's good enough for me. It talkes about it a lot in Romans.

And marrage is a gift from God, and when something like this goes into marrage, then i dont think they should be able to.

I just hope the bans pass. They would've in WI (my state), but Fiengold is dumb and veto'd it.

and if the queers still wanna get married, then they can go to Canada.

wow. simply wow. I'm from WI and am embarressed that this feeble minded person lives here also. Btw, I voted for Feingold (that's F-E-I-N, you idiot) and proud of it, he's one of the few respectable politicians in DC and has more backbone then you could ever hope to have

Oh i'm SO sorry i spelled Feingold's name wrong. He's done nothing worth speaking of except for taking bribe money from the indians. I'm also embarrassed that we have to have a man like this in our government.

Sorry you dont want me in WI, but i'm not leaving anytime soon!

Originally posted by: CrowBarr

Originally posted by: drpootums
Old testament??? Romans is in the new testament...and it says homosexuality is a sin. You should read Romans (and if u are having trouble finding it, remember, it's in the NEW testament).

I know i'm a sinner, but that's why Jesus died for me. I was forgiven, and in his eye's i am without sin. Homosexuals obviously arent christian, and so they do not ask for forgiveness from god, and thus they are going to Hell in a handbasket...

And old testament laws like that were distroyed when Jesus came back. Not all, but the things like that and making sacrifices to the temple were no longer needed because Jesus distroyed the need for those things.

And for the passages where Jesus said they were wrong:

abortion: the 5th comandment="thou shalt not murder" Abortion is murder because the baby is alive during the time of the abortion (the cardiovascular system and the nervious system have formed within the first trimester) and it can feel pain. Imagine what it would feel like to have the back of your head cut open and have your brains sucked out with a straw?

homosexuality: 1st Corinthians 6:9 "no homosexuals shall enter the kingdom of heaven"
Romans 1:26 "That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so rechly deserved"

Who are you to be judging me? I am forgiven through my savior Jesus Christ, how can anyone be against me if God is with me? John 7:24 "Stop judging with mere appearences and make a righteous judgement"

I will give you the benefit of the doubt as to the fact that you are intelligent. Taking into account that you Quoted Corithians 6:9, let's run thru that briefly...

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders"

Not going into 6:10... which also mentions thieves, the greedy, drunkards, slanderers and swindlers.
If you're going to wax religious, at least go the whole 9. This includes alot of things that everyday people are guilty of (drink much or at all?). And that's not even to go into the fact that the Bible itself is a translation, and that beliefs are always based more on interperetation.

If you are of the belief that Jesus died to save mankind from sin, then it was for all mankind and all sin, not just you and yours.

EDIT: And as a side note, You asked "Who are you to be judging me?". Well...I ask "Who are YOU to be judging anyone else?"

John 7:24 "Judge with a righteous judgement"

I see nothing wrong with judgeing against people because they are sinning. And yes, Jesus died for everyone, but that doesnt do you any good unless you repent. I ask for the forgiveness of my sins everynight, and it's impossible to comit a deliberate sin towards god (homosexuality), not repent, and still be a christian.

There is nothing wrong with drinking, it's being DRUNK! What about Jesus's first mericle? He turned water into wine. If there was a problem with alcohol, i dont think he'd be promoting it. And by the way, i'm underage, so i dont drink.

Originally posted by: loki8481

I in no way said it infringes on my rights. I said it infringes on my belief system and forces me to recognize something that I do not believe in, as legally valid.

so would Muslim's have a case if they wanted to get a ban passed forbidding people to eat pork? that infringes on their belief system. and what about cows? that probably offends the Hindus.

where does it end? banning something because it conflicts with your personal religious beliefs opens up a huge slippery slope.

Speaking of slippery slope:

I think being two men or two women are being married, hell, we can just bring back two women and one man, or THREE women and one man, or even...gasp!...FOUR women and TWO men, and for the heck of it, FOUR women, TWO men, ONE dog, and TWO cats. Anything goes once you start distroying the basis of marrage.

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
you'd think followers of a religion that essentially worship a bastard child would be more tolerant😛

That was definitally the lowest thing i've ever seen on these forums...you liberals really have started to go even below your standards. I see no problem in debating, but that crosses the line.