• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

what are the possible affects of gay marriage?

Fluffy

A fool
Victor said:
Allowing homosexual unions, not only modifies society but also the family unit and all the psychological jargon that comes with it.
The family unit was modified when homosexuality became legal. In what way would homosexual marriage modify it further and, if this sort of modification is undesirable, what steps should be taken to counteract that which has already happened?
 

methylatedghosts

Can't brain. Has dumb.
It will be the end of civilization as we know it (hopefully).
I really like the way you worded that! Frubals!

I think the longer it takes for gay couples to have the same status as hetero couples, the more slowly we advance towards acceptence of people as they are everywhere. Anything against that motion is going nowhere fast.
 

roli

Born Again,Spirit Filled
We don't really need to speculate, we can just ask the people in Holland, Belgium, Canada, Spain, South Africa and Massachusetts how it's going there. Is anyone on the board from any of those places, and can you tell us what effects, if any, gay marriage has had?
Besides the fact that we live in a society that can't any longer distinguish what is right and wrong , natural or unnatural, but only what is relative, it's just physiologically wrong in every aspect,including morally and psychologically.

Maybe not today,as behaviors and actions seldom are immediate in consequence, but another 20 yrs of these permissive practices and we will have many other sexually permitted practices,such as beastiality, incest, etc. openly practiced.
I mean who's to stop them from gaining rights of free sexual practice when many other's are permitted.
I mean who do we think we are opening such a pandora's box and then thinking we can exclude others who say what they want to practice is wrong.
Tha's just not the direction our society we live in today is going in.
This is the point, we say, ya to one practice, but nay to other's ,it won't be long before they petition for their rights just as gays have, pro abortionists,euthanasia etc

50 yrs ago this was a destestable practice in our society,it's always been that, but now we live in poltically correct culture where anything is permitted and when other's oppose it they are labelled intolerent,discriminatory and the like.

More importantly, it's the long term effect and influence it will have on children.
Of course I hear reports that ther is no proof of that ,yet there are reports that it is.
We just bury our heads in the sand and say, indulge in what makes you feel good, that's all that matters.
I think a homosexual enviroment promotes and influences a more bias and acceptable practice for most children growing up in such enviroment.

Hitler said it best ,"tell a lie often enough, long enough ,loud enough people will beleive it"
if people choose to to put their heads in the sand and live just in the feeling of the moment we are doomed,it's what's coming that will effect our society, it usually is the long term effects that
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Besides the fact that we live in a society that can't any longer distinguish what is right and wrong , natural or unnatural, but only what is relative, it's just physiologically wrong in every aspect,including morally and psychologically.
How do you figure?

Personally, I don't think there is such a thing as absolute or objective morality; relative morality is all we have. Who are you to want to impose your views on people who agree with me? Who are you to impose your views on people who do believe in an absolute morality, but also believe that morality allows same-sex marriage.

Also, it seems like you're approaching things from the standpoint of deciding between the option of having families with having married same-sex parents, or the option of having no families with same-sex parents at all. Those aren't the real choices. Here are your actual options:

- unmarried same-sex couples who live as couples, who raise families without the normal protections of law given to families
- married same-sex couples who live as couples, who raise families with the normal protections of law given to families

Regardless of your personal feelings on homosexuality, given that same-sex-parented families exist and will continue to exist whatever happens with the law, why would you be opposed to normal legal protections for what is most definitely a family unit?

Maybe not today,as behaviors and actions seldom are immediate in consequence, but another 20 yrs of these permissive practices and we will have many other sexually permitted practices,such as beastiality, incest, etc. openly practiced.
I mean who's to stop them from gaining rights of free sexual practice when many other's are permitted.
I mean who do we think we are opening such a pandora's box and then thinking we can exclude others who say what they want to practice is wrong.
Tha's just not the direction our society we live in today is going in.
This is the point, we say, ya to one practice, but nay to other's ,it won't be long before they petition for their rights just as gays have, pro abortionists,euthanasia etc

IOW, your main objections to same-sex marriage aren't related to the immediate issue at hand, but what you think that same-sex marriage might lead to? If your mind could be eased that allowing same-sex couples to marry wouldn't "open a pandora's box", then would you consider it societally acceptable? Is that a fair assessment?

50 yrs ago this was a destestable practice in our society,it's always been that, but now we live in poltically correct culture where anything is permitted and when other's oppose it they are labelled intolerent,discriminatory and the like.
50 years ago, it was considered societally acceptable to have the "coloured" people drink out of a different water fountain. Is that society really the one you want to aspire to be like?

More importantly, it's the long term effect and influence it will have on children.
Of course I hear reports that ther is no proof of that ,yet there are reports that it is.
We just bury our heads in the sand and say, indulge in what makes you feel good, that's all that matters.
There's lots of evidence about the long-term effect of same-sex marriages on children: being raised in a loving home is good for kids, regardless of the orientation of the parents; being raised in a troubled home is bad for kids, regardless of the orientation of the parents.

Do you think that making life difficult for same-sex parents by denying them and their families the usual rights and benefits of law helps or hinders their ability their ability to provide a loving home for their children?

I think a homosexual enviroment promotes and influences a more bias and acceptable practice for most children growing up in such enviroment.
It is an acceptable practice, so why is this an issue?

Hitler said it best ,"tell a lie often enough, long enough ,loud enough people will beleive it"
if people choose to to put their heads in the sand and live just in the feeling of the moment we are doomed,it's what's coming that will effect our society, it usually is the long term effects that
How exactly do you think that creating a lifetime commitment through marriage is living "just in the feeling of the moment"?
 
I am an ordained clergy person in Spiritual Humanism and I stand up with all couples including gay and lesbian couples.Good for society and family values-- committing to another through thick and thin is a good thing- lends strength to a family.The idea of children in foster care vs perm homes is a no-brainer for me-- get them in homes with loving parents and never mind the plumbing of the parents- just my 2 cents on the topic--btw-- glad to be here! (and to hear from others and learn from different view points)
 

roli

Born Again,Spirit Filled
How do you figure?

Figure what ? how do i figure it's physiologically wrong, it's an exit port not made to have things penetrate it, do a little read up on it.
Anybody can make it sound ok, but does'nt mean it is.

Personally, I don't think there is such a thing as absolute or objective morality; relative morality is all we have.
I don't think that position would stand up in a court room ,how can you use it here
If I kill your family and steal your goods and claim a relativistic mindset ,will you accept that as justifiable reasoning. I will bet you would think it's wrong, regardless of the fact I claim there is no right or wrong and felt it was right to harm your family

Who are you to want to impose your views on people who agree with me? Who are you to impose your views on people who do believe in an absolute morality, but also believe that morality allows same-sex marriage.
If you hold to that position, will you also hold to it if your child grows up and kills someone and you turn to him and say ,son that was wrong and he says, you told me everything is relative. That means there is no right or wrong so do what you will.





Regardless of your personal feelings on homosexuality, given that same-sex-parented families exist and will continue to exist whatever happens with the law, why would you be opposed to normal legal protections for what is most definitely a family unit?
As much as you philosphize this thing and spew your politcal correctness and relative garbage, it's still unnatural and immoral and physiologically wrong.
A child could figure this out if he had the knowledge of human anatomy, it's sad some adults are just so philosophical they become clouded to the truth.


IOW, your main objections to same-sex marriage aren't related to the immediate issue at hand, but what you think that same-sex marriage might lead to? If your mind could be eased that allowing same-sex couples to marry wouldn't "open a pandora's box", then would you consider it societally acceptable? Is that a fair assessment?
Think for moment the state of our society if gay life was permitted and endorsed fully and completely.
It would sure aid in the over population crisis.


50 years ago, it was considered societally acceptable to have the "coloured" people drink out of a different water fountain. Is that society really the one you want to aspire to be like?
Hardly the same thing, but spew your poor examples anyways.


There's lots of evidence about the long-term effect of same-sex marriages on children: being raised in a loving home is good for kids, regardless of the orientation of the parents; being raised in a troubled home is bad for kids, regardless of the orientation of the parents.
I think it may be healthy in some cases where love and nurture is present.
If that's all you choose to read while excluding the articles that clearly state the contrary and psychological effects of children having to daddies, or 2 mommies.

Do you think that making life difficult for same-sex parents by denying them and their families the usual rights and benefits of law helps or hinders their ability their ability to provide a loving home for their children?
I understand we can't deny them equal rights,but can't that same line of reasoning be used to those who want to have sex with animals, incest, etc.
Do you think they should be excluded for wanting to express themselves freely.
Do you comprehend where this could lead, we give rights to women to abort babies, euthansia, same sex marriage, what is next for the next group of people who arise from the miniority wings and claim to be entitled to equal rights.
Does anybody consider where this can lead, or are they wilfully ignorant


It is an acceptable practice, so why is this an issue?
It's acceptable to those who I think ease their weary and guilty conscience by endorsing such unnatural practice so as not to feel guilty or condemned about their own immoral practices


How exactly do you think that creating a lifetime commitment through marriage is living "just in the feeling of the moment
To be honest ,I think that it becomes more of a diligent pursuit to propagate the freedom to express the lifestyle than it is to actually live it. It becomes a cause more than a lifestyle.
I have been to a gay parade, just to witness the antics and it is nothing more than an arrogant expression of sexual perversion.
People want to be gay and love the same sex, fine, but when you watch men dressing like women and taking on feminine roles, wearing high heels and women taking on a role as a male dominent, it;s just a contridiction of terms and quite amusing to watch.
Looking into that behavior one see's the confusion and disorder among such practices.

God made man and women, yet gay couples always have a dominent and a passive which is seemingly clear they are resorting back to an order that is obviously natural.

Why is that.

Is anyone gay that could shed some light on this, why do they resort back to a natural order of role playing.
 

Nanda

Polyanna
God made man and women, yet gay couples always have a dominent and a passive which is seemingly clear they are resorting back to an order that is obviously natural.

No they don't. My friend Nicole and her girlfriend do not have a dominant/passive relationship - they're equals. For that matter, my husband and I don't have a dominant/passive relationship, either, so it's not as "obviously natural" as you seem to think it is.
 

Random

Well-Known Member
I am an ordained clergy person in Spiritual Humanism and I stand up with all couples including gay and lesbian couples.Good for society and family values-- committing to another through thick and thin is a good thing- lends strength to a family.The idea of children in foster care vs perm homes is a no-brainer for me-- get them in homes with loving parents and never mind the plumbing of the parents- just my 2 cents on the topic--btw-- glad to be here! (and to hear from others and learn from different view points)

Start a thread explaining what it means to be an "ordained clergy person" in Spiritual Humanism. @ once. I want to know more.

BTW, by being a spiritual humanist, do I get my superpowers back?
 

Papersock

Lucid Dreamer
roli said:
I don't think that position would stand up in a court room ,how can you use it here

There's a difference between morality and law.

If I kill your family and steal your goods and claim a relativistic mindset ,will you accept that as justifiable reasoning. I will bet you would think it's wrong, regardless of the fact I claim there is no right or wrong and felt it was right to harm your family

Even if his family means nothing to you, that doesn't change the fact that they are important to him and each of their lives is important to them. Whether it is inherently morally wrong or not, it would still be bad for everyone else involved.

Moral relativism aside, letting a gay couple marry is nothing like letting someone kill your family.

roli said:
Think for moment the state of our society if gay life was permitted and endorsed fully and completely.
roli said:
It would sure aid in the over population crisis.

Not everyone would be gay.
Gay couples are still capable of having children.
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Figure what ? how do i figure it's physiologically wrong, it's an exit port not made to have things penetrate it, do a little read up on it.
Anybody can make it sound ok, but does'nt mean it is.
It sounds like what you're objecting to is (please excuse the explicit language) anal intercourse. You do realize that many lesbian and gay people do not engage in this practice, and many straight people do? In any case, do you really think you should get to dictate what other people's sex lives should look like? Would you like someone to do that to you?
I don't think that position would stand up in a court room ,how can you use it here
If I kill your family and steal your goods and claim a relativistic mindset ,will you accept that as justifiable reasoning. I will bet you would think it's wrong, regardless of the fact I claim there is no right or wrong and felt it was right to harm your family
I disagree with 9/10; I think there is such a thing as objective morality. Objectively, homosexuality is moral, and bigotry is immoral.

If you hold to that position, will you also hold to it if your child grows up and kills someone and you turn to him and say ,son that was wrong and he says, you told me everything is relative. That means there is no right or wrong so do what you will.
I agree. Similarly, if my child grows up and says, "Some people are not entitled to equal rights," I would have no basis on which to correct her.

As much as you philosphize this thing and spew your politcal correctness and relative garbage, it's still unnatural and immoral and physiologically wrong.
A child could figure this out if he had the knowledge of human anatomy, it's sad some adults are just so philosophical they become clouded to the truth.
On what basis do you decree that the love that my life is based on is morally wrong?
What do you mean by "unnatural?" It's completely natural to me, I assure you.

Think for moment the state of our society if gay life was permitted and endorsed fully and completely.
Halelujah. Freedom for each to be themselves.
It would sure aid in the over population crisis.
Sadly, probably not. There aren't very many gay people.

Hardly the same thing, but spew your poor examples anyways.
Equality is equality.

I think it may be healthy in some cases where love and nurture is present.
If that's all you choose to read while excluding the articles that clearly state the contrary and psychological effects of children having to daddies, or 2 mommies.
There is no research that performed with any acceptable scientific methods that show that children of two mothers suffer negative effects as compared to children with a mother and a father.

Before you Google, beward: Family Resource Council, NARTH and Paul Cameron are worse liars than Kent Hovind. Don't embarass yourself. Find out what the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Council on Adoptive Children, and the American Psychological Assocation have to say. They are not gay organizations.

I understand we can't deny them equal rights,but can't that same line of reasoning be used to those who want to have sex with animals, incest, etc.
No. One involved consenting adults, the other doesn't.
Do you think they should be excluded for wanting to express themselves freely.
Do you comprehend where this could lead, we give rights to women to abort babies, euthansia, same sex marriage, what is next for the next group of people who arise from the miniority wings and claim to be entitled to equal rights.
Oh no, not equal rights for minorities! We can't have that! The next thing you know, people will want democracy and freedom of speech!

Does anybody consider where this can lead, or are they wilfully ignorant
As I said, where has it led Belgium, Spain, Canada and Holland? Has there been an upsurge in incest and bestiality there?

It's acceptable to those who I think ease their weary and guilty conscience by endorsing such unnatural practice so as not to feel guilty or condemned about their own immoral practices
Cheap, evil, well poisoning. Anyone who disagrees with you is hiding their own immorality? By the news, it looks like the people who need to hide their own immoral practices are all on your side, roli. Do the names, Ted Haggard, Larry Craig and David Vitter ring a bell?

I have been to a gay parade, just to witness the antics and it is nothing more than an arrogant expression of sexual perversion.
People want to be gay and love the same sex, fine, but when you watch men dressing like women and taking on feminine roles, wearing high heels and women taking on a role as a male dominent, it;s just a contridiction of terms and quite amusing to watch.
To each his own. How does it hurt ou?
Looking into that behavior one see's the confusion and disorder among such practices.
It's not that confusing; you'll catch on.
God made man and women, yet gay couples always have a dominent and a passive which is seemingly clear they are resorting back to an order that is obviously natural.
No, they don't. My collaborator in life, my own sweetheart and I, do not have a dominant and passive partner. We are equal collaborators, and we like it that way. And according to you, God made both of us.

Why is that.
It isn't.

Is anyone gay that could shed some light on this, why do they resort back to a natural order of role playing.
Because we don't. We develop our own structures for each relationship. It's wonderful. Now, why do you think that dominant/passive is the only or natural model? That's screwed up.
 

Smoke

Done here.
They play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behaviour.
In what way, specifically? Do you think more people will become homosexual if same-sex marriages are permitted, or that more homosexuals will choose not to be in a relationship at all, or that more homosexuals will pretend to be heterosexual, or what?

Allowing homosexual unions, not only modifies society but also the family unit and all the psychological jargon that comes with it.
How, specifically, would allowing homosexual unions modify the family unit?

You might disagree, but that is what we believe.
I'll be interested to know why you believe it.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
It seems utterly implausible to me that allowing gay marriages will create more homosexuals. Sexual orientation seems to be fixed early on in development. It does not appear to have anything to do with the availability of marriage.
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Did someone say it would?
That would be odd. That seems to imply that homosexuality is intrinsically appealing or desirable, and we need to design negative consequences to persuade people not to choose it.
 

Ryan2065

Well-Known Member
Figure what ? how do i figure it's physiologically wrong, it's an exit port not made to have things penetrate it, do a little read up on it.
Anybody can make it sound ok, but does'nt mean it is.

Sometimes the purpose of sex is pleasure and not procreation. I do not know your individual beliefs, but if you believe oral sex and birth control are fine then you recognize sex can be for pleasure alone and it would be hypocritical to say anal sex is wrong. If you believe birth control and oral sex are wrong then please disregard this argument.

If you hold to that position, will you also hold to it if your child grows up and kills someone and you turn to him and say ,son that was wrong and he says, you told me everything is relative. That means there is no right or wrong so do what you will.
Who are you to say what is right or wrong? I would tell my kid I feel this is wrong regardless of what he feels. If you were in that same situation but your child said he felt God wanted him to kill the person what would you do?

As much as you philosphize this thing and spew your politcal correctness and relative garbage, it's still unnatural and immoral and physiologically wrong.
A child could figure this out if he had the knowledge of human anatomy, it's sad some adults are just so philosophical they become clouded to the truth.
This all depends on the purpose of sex. The people involved in anal intercourse are trying to have fun. Sure if they were trying to make a child they would be doing it wrong, but they are doing it for pleasure so they are doing it right.

I think it may be healthy in some cases where love and nurture is present.
If that's all you choose to read while excluding the articles that clearly state the contrary and psychological effects of children having to daddies, or 2 mommies.
If love and nurture are not present the child will not turn out right no matter what assortment of parents they have.

I understand we can't deny them equal rights,but can't that same line of reasoning be used to those who want to have sex with animals, incest, etc.
I don't necessarily get your sex with animals example... We are not talking about allowing anal sex, we are talking about rights for homosexual couples. The sex is already allowed. It is a very bad example.

I won't give you my view on incest because I imagine it would derail this thread :p

Do you comprehend where this could lead, we give rights to women to abort babies, euthansia, same sex marriage, what is next for the next group of people who arise from the miniority wings and claim to be entitled to equal rights.
Does anybody consider where this can lead, or are they wilfully ignorant
If society feels something is morally acceptable a democratic nation should see this and change its laws to allow it. When slavery was legal it was morally acceptable to own slaves. This changed and so did the slavery laws. Then it was morally acceptable to be racist. Society changed and so did the laws. Now we are coming out of the period where it was morally acceptable to be homophobic and the laws will change to show it.

It's acceptable to those who I think ease their weary and guilty conscience by endorsing such unnatural practice so as not to feel guilty or condemned about their own immoral practices
It is unnatural to wait till marriage to have sex. It is hypocritical to say anal sex is wrong because it is unnatural when you practice unnatural things yourself. The natural way to go about things is to listen to our bodies, and let me tell you, our bodies do not say wait for marriage to have sex.

God made man and women, yet gay couples always have a dominent and a passive which is seemingly clear they are resorting back to an order that is obviously natural.

Why is that.

Is anyone gay that could shed some light on this, why do they resort back to a natural order of role playing.
I'm not gay but I think two tops is physically impossible.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Did someone say it would?
That would be odd. That seems to imply that homosexuality is intrinsically appealing or desirable, and we need to design negative consequences to persuade people not to choose it.

I hear it all the time down here in Colorado Springs -- home to Focus on the Family. Many people here actually seem to believe that homosexuality is so attractive we must erect sanctions against it to prevent straight people from adopting "the homosexual lifestyle".
 

Guitar's Cry

Disciple of Pan
Figure what ? how do i figure it's physiologically wrong, it's an exit port not made to have things penetrate it, do a little read up on it.

I remember reading somewhere (I don't have the source and have no idea where, so this should be taken with a block of salt ;)) that there were some health benefits to anal sex, including increased blood flow and muscle strengthening...

But that's a little off-topic, isn't it? Anal sex is to gay marriage as oral sex is to straight marriage; it's an activity not exclusive to homosexuality, and is not necessarily done.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Figure what ? how do i figure it's physiologically wrong, it's an exit port not made to have things penetrate it, do a little read up on it.
Anybody can make it sound ok, but does'nt mean it is.
I assume you're also against surgery, since the skin is an organ apparently "designed" to keep out foreign matter. After surgeons breach this protective barrier, it takes considerable care and often strong medication to make sure that the patient doesn't get a life-threatening infection.

And again, what about people who either disagree with the idea that body parts have intended uses (which, IMO, implies a conscious intent on the part of some designer), or believe that they do, but disagree with your assessment? Why should your opinion dictate the law that affects everyone?

And also, whether or not homosexuality should be legal is not at issue here. Whether same-sex marriage is legal or not, anyone is free to engage in consensual (subject to the normal restrictions of age, relationship, etc.) sexual activity with a member of the same sex. The issue is the legal recognition of existing couples and families, not the existence of those couples and families.

But back to your original statement. You wrote that homosexuality is "just physiologically wrong in every aspect,including morally and psychologically." So... again, how so? What reason do you have to say that homosexuality is physiologically wrong (keeping in mind that the "design intent" doesn't hold water if you're willing to have surgery, wear glasses or do a hundred other things that go against the apparent "intent" of our purported "designer")? What reason do you have to say that homosexuality is morally wrong? What reason do you have to say that homosexuality is psychologically wrong?

I don't think that position would stand up in a court room ,how can you use it here
If I kill your family and steal your goods and claim a relativistic mindset ,will you accept that as justifiable reasoning. I will bet you would think it's wrong, regardless of the fact I claim there is no right or wrong and felt it was right to harm your family

I didn't say that there aren't societal and cultural conventions and norms of behaviour... of course there are. But if you look at various cultures over various times, you'll quickly see that what is considered "right and wrong" is very much dependent on where and when you look. Even if you want to argue that there is some objective standard that's the "best" moral system, I'd argue that it's clear that humanity has absolutely no idea what it is.


If you hold to that position, will you also hold to it if your child grows up and kills someone and you turn to him and say ,son that was wrong and he says, you told me everything is relative. That means there is no right or wrong so do what you will.

No, of course not. Just because I don't submit to your interpretation of the "rules" doesn't mean that I don't believe in rules at all. As it happens, I believe that the "rules" vary from place to place and from one time to another, but I do acknowledge that every society has rules for behaviour.

As much as you philosphize this thing and spew your politcal correctness and relative garbage, it's still unnatural and immoral and physiologically wrong.
A child could figure this out if he had the knowledge of human anatomy, it's sad some adults are just so philosophical they become clouded to the truth.
Since it seems you forget, I also stated that people can disagree with your position even if they agree with the idea of one objective, absolute morality.

And call it being "philosophical" if you want, but I believe that it's simple human decency to not harm people without a very good reason. This is what you're advocating, and so far, you've only given fallacious arguments and your own unsubstantiated opinion to support your position. While you're free to believe whatever you want, I don't accept this as support for public policy or any action that's going to have an impact on others..

Think for moment the state of our society if gay life was permitted and endorsed fully and completely.
It would sure aid in the over population crisis.
Gay single life is already permitted and endorsed (at least legally) fully and completely. Civilization has yet to crumble.

Hardly the same thing, but spew your poor examples anyways.
It's exactly the same thing. You're asking for state-sanctioned discrimination against one group for no reason other than your own personal opinion. It's just as wrong.

I think it may be healthy in some cases where love and nurture is present.
If that's all you choose to read while excluding the articles that clearly state the contrary and psychological effects of children having to daddies, or 2 mommies.
I've yet to find such an article that wasn't prepared by a group trying to shore up support for a position they already had before the "study".


I understand we can't deny them equal rights,but can't that same line of reasoning be used to those who want to have sex with animals, incest, etc.
Do you think they should be excluded for wanting to express themselves freely.
Do you comprehend where this could lead, we give rights to women to abort babies, euthansia, same sex marriage, what is next for the next group of people who arise from the miniority wings and claim to be entitled to equal rights.
Does anybody consider where this can lead, or are they wilfully ignorant
Apparently we are ignorant. Please tell us... where will abortion, euthanasia and same-sex marriage lead? Be sure to spell out the process step-by-step so we can understand how we'd get from this to Hell on Earth.

But you're right... the march to freedom and equality has been a bad move generally. Maybe we should back things up a bit; where would you draw the line? Get rid of racial equality? Gender equality? Actually, I think the "slippery slope" may have begun with freedom of religion... maybe we should get rid of that, right?

It's acceptable to those who I think ease their weary and guilty conscience by endorsing such unnatural practice so as not to feel guilty or condemned about their own immoral practices
I find it acceptable. Please... inform those assembled what exactly my own "immoral practices" are for which I'm easing my "weary and guilty conscience". :rolleyes:

To be honest ,I think that it becomes more of a diligent pursuit to propagate the freedom to express the lifestyle than it is to actually live it. It becomes a cause more than a lifestyle.
I have been to a gay parade, just to witness the antics and it is nothing more than an arrogant expression of sexual perversion.
Gay Pride Day is a single festival, and while it's one expression of homosexuality (sort of how Mardi Gras is one expression of the culture at large), it's just one expression of it.

But contrast the Gay Pride parade with an expression of heterosexuality: the strip club. As a straight man, I am definitely not defined by this thing that is heterosexual as heterosexual can be; are you?

Homosexuality is just as broad as heterosexuality, and condemning all gay people because of things you find objectionable at the Gay Pride Parade doesn't make sense. Do you draw conclusions about the moral character or parenting ability of all heterosexuals based on the antics of the people at a New Orleans Mardi Gras? If not, do you think it's appropriate to draw similar conclusions about an entire group of people another (and in many ways tamer) street festival?
 

roli

Born Again,Spirit Filled
I remember reading somewhere (I don't have the source and have no idea where, so this should be taken with a block of salt ;)) that there were some health benefits to anal sex, including increased blood flow and muscle strengthening...

I'm sure is does increase blood flow, any flexation of muscle will do that, but strengthening the muscle ,what muscle, if your referring to the anal,tell that to those who have to wear diapers because they have destroyed the anal muscle that is essential for terd control
 

Smoke

Done here.
Sometime when I'm drinking I'll share with you the gospel song I wrote a few weeks ago, "Gays and lesbians destroyed my marriage." It's the lament of a good Christian heterosexual whose life was wrecked when homosexuals destroyed the sanctity of his marriage. Probably be a big hit on Christian radio.
 
Top