Haha yeah I love how people us that line. I love it more when it comes from my dad who then goes to say "I'm not a bigot, I just don't agree with their life style." But then again my Daddy has never been the sharpest tool in the shed. *shrugs*

That was pretty honoring to your father. I hope my daughter doesn't speak about me as you have your father.

If you new my father you would agree with me.

I love it more when it comes from my dad who then goes to say "I'm not a bigot, I just don't agree with their life style." But then again my Daddy has never been the sharpest tool in the shed. *shrugs*

So anyone who doesn't agree with your opinion on this issue is A) a bigot and B) an idiot?

No offense... but you seem to portray that anyone who doesn't agree with your opinion on this issue is automatically wrong.

...just sayin'.

No offense... but you seem to portray that anyone who doesn't agree with your opinion on this issue is automatically wrong.

How so? I'm just bringing up the fact that people who oppose same-sex "marriage" aren't a bunch of idiots like the author of this thread seems to believe.

Obviously you feel very strongly about your beliefs, and you spend a fair amount of time justifying your beliefs. You use all these fancy-schmancy words, and all these fancy-schmancy theories about how it can be better. But the ultimate issue is that this is even an issue to begin with. This is about people. Human beings. American CITIZENS. Not second class citizens. It is people who feel that homosexuality is a "sin" that got us here to begin with.

These forums can get pretty heated, and emotions can run high as people do feel very strongly about this. (Let's not forget when we were told flat out to give up because church and government will never be separated.) But, this is about the lives of human beings. You feel that homosexuality is an abomination. My brother is homosexual. You, obviously, do not know him. You have no clue what he does for a living, or what his house looks like, or what he looks like, or what his voice sounds like, or anything about him. He would do anything for anyone, and is one of the most genuine people I know. He is thoughtful, compassionate, and hilarious. So, do you still feel that he is an abomination? I am bisexual. You, once again, no NOTHING about me. You probably don't know I've been with my boyfriend for over four years, and that we are engaged.

People say that it is not the homosexual that they hate, it is the sin. But the problem is, homosexuality is not a choice. I don't care what Bible verse you pull, it isn't going to mean anything. Human sexuality is ingrained into us. The attraction I feel towards a woman is no different than the attraction I feel for a man. I didn't CHOOSE to feel this way. Why would I?? Why would I choose to be hated by so many? I didn't choose to be bisexual any more than a straight person asks to be straight.

Anti-homosexual marriage people automatically believe that they are right. People on the other side automatically believe that they are right. There shouldn't be a right or wrong when it comes to this, because it shouldn't even be an issue. Why should anyone decide how another person lives their life? Their life style does not hurt anyone, so why should it even matter?

Obviously you feel very strongly about your beliefs, and you spend a fair amount of time justifying your beliefs. You use all these fancy-schmancy words, and all these fancy-schmancy theories about how it can be better.

Are you saying that I shouldn't be wasting my time talking to you? If you think I'm using "big words" because I can discuss this issue intelligently, then perhaps I am.

But the ultimate issue is that this is even an issue to begin with. This is about people. Human beings. American CITIZENS. Not second class citizens. It is people who feel that homosexuality is a "sin" that got us here to begin with.

Actually, it's individuals like yourself who want to justify sexual perversity who got us here in the first place. And I don't see any homosexuals being denied their citizenship or their constitutional rights.

(Let's not forget when we were told flat out to give up because church and government will never be separated.)

Certainly not when we have politicians like Bush and Obama who keep blurring the line between the institutions of church and state.

My brother is homosexual. You, obviously, do not know him. You have no clue what he does for a living, or what his house looks like, or what he looks like, or what his voice sounds like, or anything about him.

Why is this relevant? Do I have to know a murderer personally to have an opinion regarding his behavior? What about a thief or a liar? Do I have to know any such people on any personal level in order to discern that their behavior is wrong? Obviously I don't.

So, do you still feel that he is an abomination? I am bisexual. You, once again, no NOTHING about me. You probably don't know I've been with my boyfriend for over four years, and that we are engaged.

And what exactly is this supposed to prove? I'm not calling anyone an abomination. I'm calling a particular type of behavior an abomination. Unlike you, I'm not hitching an individual's entire identity to his sexual behavior. Sad that you're doing that to yourself.

People say that it is not the homosexual that they hate, it is the sin. But the problem is, homosexuality is not a choice.

Does anyone hold a gun to your head and force you to commit homosexual acts?

I don't care what Bible verse you pull, it isn't going to mean anything.

I know you don't. You're in rebellion against God and His law. You've made that pretty clear.

Human sexuality is ingrained into us.

No, sin is ingrained into us--all of us. And that distorts our sexuality and perverts it into all sorts of bad ways.

I didn't CHOOSE to feel this way. Why would I?? Why would I choose to be hated by so many? I didn't choose to be bisexual any more than a straight person asks to be straight.

Where is it written that decisions and choices have to be rational? Adulterers experience shame and humiliation often, but that certainly doesn't stop people from engaging in said behavior.

You obviously have missed the ENTIRE point of my post.

Are you saying that I shouldn't be wasting my time talking to you? If you think I'm using "big words" because I can discuss this issue intelligently, then perhaps I am.

First of all, that was just rude and uncalled for. I have a college degree. Just because I don't use your self-righteous tactics doesn't mean I am not able to have an intelligent discussion. So please don't patronize me like that.

Actually, it's individuals like yourself who want to justify sexual perversity who got us here in the first place. And I don't see any homosexuals being denied their citizenship or their constitutional rights.

If you'd like, I'd be more than happy to send you my most recent entry. It discusses the misconceptions of the passages in the Bible aimed towards homosexuality. It is not sexual perversity. It is sexual orientation.

First of all, that was just rude and uncalled for. I have a college degree.

No more rude than your uncalled for assumptions about why I write the way I do, accusing me of all sorts of bad things simply because you don't like the way I engage in discourse. Also, having a college degree doesn't mean you're capable of properly engaging in rhetoric. Being a former college student myself, I know that colleges teach people *what* to think, not *how* to think. No big surprise here.

Just because I don't use your self-righteous tactics doesn't mean I am not able to have an intelligent discussion. So please don't patronize me like that.


Self-righteous? I'm not the one going around on forums accusing my opponents of being idiots and bigots simply because I don't agree with them.

If you'd like, I'd be more than happy to send you my most recent entry. It discusses the misconceptions of the passages in the Bible aimed towards homosexuality.

Yeah, the same pro-homosexual arguments which have been refuted and debunked elsewhere. Arguments by people who don't know how to properly read Scripture. Been there, done that. There's nothing new under the sun.

I know that colleges teach people *what* to think, not *how* to think. No big surprise here.

I am perfectly capable of having my own thoughts and opinions. You were the one alluding that I am unable to have an intelligent conversation.

Self-righteous? I'm not the one going around on forums accusing my opponents of being idiots and bigots simply because I don't agree with them.

I BEG you to find ONE TIME where I use the word bigot. Please. You surely must be confusing me with someone else. I don't try to preach hate. I try to preach love.


Yeah, the same pro-homosexual arguments which have been refuted and debunked elsewhere. Arguments by people who don't know how to properly read Scripture. Been there, done that. There's nothing new under the sun

Well, it's the same old song and dance as it being called an abomination. Want me to say that sin is subjective a few hundred more times? I find it quite odd that I didn't receive a whole lot of real negative feedback on that entry... I really recommend reading it though.

Should cults be allowed to sacrifice their children to pagan deities
PLEASE take two seconds to research Paganism. First of all, Paganism isn't a cult, so please don't make any references to that. Second of all, Paganism does not advocate hurting anyone or anything. But, if you are going to go that avenue, want me to look up a couple cases of people who have taken the word of God a little too literally and killed homosexual people?

Where have I stated that homosexuals are not human beings? I've stated that all human beings are created in the image of God and for that reason alone are worthy of dignity and respect. Calling sinful behavior for what it is doesn't change that.

The whole debate is degrading to the entire population of homosexual individuals. If it were any other group of consenting adult citizens, it would not be an issue.

Why is that relevant to whether homosexuality is an ethical expression of human sexuality?

Because you can't assume that it is a perversion that is caused by sin if you don't know what it is like to feel like that. It can't become an ethical debate, as there is no one standard of morals to base it on. The heterosexual community does not know what it feels like to have those feelings, so why do they get to vote on it?

Having feelings and actually acting upon those feelings are two separate concepts altogether

This is turning into a back and forth thing, and I'm getting quite tired. It would only two separate concepts if those feelings are a choice. There is scientific research proving that homosexuality is not a choice. If it is not a choice, it wouldn't be any different than a straight man and woman being together.

Somehow I don't think that excuse is going to fly when the Day of Judgment finally comes.

Well, at least I'd die believing in something with my whole heart. Would God rather me halfheartedly believe just to get into the Heaven? Or what is worse... not believing in anything at all? And really, that's the beauty of America. I can believe in whatever I'd like to believe.

I'm not debating that. I'm simply saying that not all forms of expression of those desires are equal. Some are evil and sinful.

When they are between two consenting adults it should not be for anyone else to judge or determine. And by saying that sexual desires are natural, that is leading to homosexuality being a natural, genetic thing that is not a choice.

Yet another comment showing your ignorance of the Scriptures. You obviously don't understand the trifold division within the Mosaic Code and the fact that we're no longer under the judicial laws of theocratic Israel.

Obviously this isn't a theocratic Israel! That is why I'm allowed to even speak my voice on this issue! And that was ultimately my point! What Christians are using as the foundation of their argument is just as silly as an adulterer being stoned! Or a man and woman who sleep together during the woman's period getting executed! No one brings those up because they aren't valid in modern time. Yet they keep bringing up the passages against homosexuality. And if you would have read my entry, you would have been able to gather that.

I BEG you to find ONE TIME where I use the word bigot. Please. You surely must be confusing me with someone else. I don't try to preach hate. I try to preach love.

Actually, I wasn't referring to you but another individual on this forum. My apologies for the confusion.

Well, it's the same old song and dance as it being called an abomination. Want me to say that sin is subjective a few hundred more times? I find it quite odd that I didn't receive a whole lot of real negative feedback on that entry... I really recommend reading it though.

As I said before, I've heard this poor arguments before by people like yourself who don't know how to read Scripture. I'm not going to give myself another headache by listening to tortured reasoning from antinomians. These same heretics want us to believe that sin cannot be defined when in fact it is clearly defined within the Mosaic Code and elsewhere. These are the same ignorant people who cannot distinguish between the three types of law found within the Mosaic Code and thus fail to understand that we still live under the moral laws, even though the judicial and ceremonial laws have been abrogated.

Why didn't you receive negative feedback? I can't answer that question, but perhaps most Christians see the arguments as being ridiculous (which they are) and thus won't waste their time responding to it. Another reason may be the fact that Bloop has always been a bastion of liberalism. There aren't too many conservative Christians on this website.

PLEASE take two seconds to research Paganism. First of all, Paganism isn't a cult, so please don't make any references to that. Second of all, Paganism does not advocate hurting anyone or anything.

You should do some research of your own, because I'm not referring to Paganism (upper-case "P") but the classical use of the term "pagan" (lower-case "p") which is used to describe non-Christian religions. In fact, the classical use of the term *far* predates the modern popularity of Paganism proper.

But, if you are going to go that avenue, want me to look up a couple cases of people who have taken the word of God a little too literally and killed homosexual people?

It's not an issue of people taking it "too literally," but taking the text out of context. You can do that with any kind of text. If anyone has done so, then they have the same misinterpretation that you had in your earlier post, not understanding the difference between the moral and judicial laws. But anyway, this has nothing to do with my earlier question which challenged the assertion that we ought to respect all religions and worldviews.

The whole debate is degrading to the entire population of homosexual individuals. If it were any other group of consenting adult citizens, it would not be an issue.

Really? Because the homosexual community has brought this debate upon themselves by using activist judges to force same-sex "marriage" via judicial fiat. If they didn't want this debate to happen, then they should have taken the libertarian position of getting civil government out of the marriage business entirely. But since the vast majority of homosexual activists are die-hard statists, they will never take that position.

Suffice to say, if they don't want to be "degraded" by this debate, then they should stop participating in the process. Conservative Christians get savaged by the far-Left every day and I don't hear any sympathy for them. Politics is a nasty business and it isn't for people with thin skin.

Because you can't assume that it is a perversion that is caused by sin if you don't know what it is like to feel like that. It can't become an ethical debate, as there is no one standard of morals to base it on.

Yes it is an ethical debate because we have the standard of Scripture. Homosexuality is indeed sexual perversion when we look at it through the lenses of Scripture. I know, you reject the Word of God. I get that. You're going to come back and say, "We can't legislate according to the Bible" or some similar line of argumentation. Yet on this forum and elsewhere I've offered a simple solution to this problem by removing the state from regulating marriage entirely.

Thus far, no one on the other side has taken me up on that compromise. Apparently they don't want Christians to advocate for their beliefs in the public square, but it's perfectly okay for them to impose their morality by mandating state-sanctioned "marriage" for same-sex couples.

It would only two separate concepts if those feelings are a choice. There is scientific research proving that homosexuality is not a choice. If it is not a choice, it wouldn't be any different than a straight man and woman being together.

Absolutely not. Even if it's true that those feelings aren't a "choice," it still doesn't mean that a person is forced to act upon them. I have sexual urges myself, but that doesn't mean that I'm forced to engage in pre-marital sex, adultery, etc. nor would I be justified in engaging in said behaviors.

Well, at least I'd die believing in something with my whole heart.

Yes, your fallen, corrupt heart. Human beings are totally depraved and as such our hearts betray us.

Would God rather me halfheartedly believe just to get into the Heaven? Or what is worse... not believing in anything at all?

No one gets into heaven by their own merits. Salvation comes by grace alone, through faith alone, in the person and work of Christ alone. Faith itself is a gift from God and we can only have faith when He replaces our hearts of stone with hearts of flesh. Regeneration precedes faith.

When they are between two consenting adults it should not be for anyone else to judge or determine.

So you're going to force my pastor not to preach against sins like homosexuality, adultery, etc.? Where do you get the authority to tell me or anyone else what types of behaviors we may judge?

And by saying that sexual desires are natural, that is leading to homosexuality being a natural, genetic thing that is not a choice.

Having sexual feelings is natural, yes, but that doesn't mean that we can manifest those desires however we want. Moreover, there is absolutely no proof that homosexuality is genetic or anything like that. There is only speculation which is lacking at best.

Obviously this isn't a theocratic Israel! That is why I'm allowed to even speak my voice on this issue! And that was ultimately my point!

Yes, and that was my point as well. Why are you bringing up the judicial laws of the Mosaic Code if we aren't living in theocratic Israel? Your citations are inappropriate, if not anachronistic.

What Christians are using as the foundation of their argument is just as silly as an adulterer being stoned!

Absolutely not. Have you actually studied biblical law? Do me a favor and take a look at Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. The first verse is part of the moral law and the second is part of the judicial laws. We are no longer bound by the judicial laws, but we are still bound by the moral laws. Why is this so difficult to understand?

Or a man and woman who sleep together during the woman's period getting executed! No one brings those up because they aren't valid in modern time.

Yes, and why do you think that is? Laws concerning blood, eating shellfish, pork, etc. are part of the ceremonial laws and have to do with ritual cleanliness. Since we live in the New Covenant, we are no longer bound by those laws. They were abrogated as we read in Acts 10:9-16.

Yet they keep bringing up the passages against homosexuality. And if you would have read my entry, you would have been able to gather that.

Again, I've read those arguments before and they're bogus as I've just demonstrated above. And since you're an avid reader, try reading this article on the subject:

http://www.equip.org/articles/president-bartlett-s-fallacious-diatribe

Since you don't seem to want to listen to anything I say, perhaps reading that article will do a better job of communicating what I said.

I'm not going to give myself another headache by listening to tortured reasoning from antinomians.

Goodness, that is showing me a lot of respect. I appreciate that, I really do.

classical use of the term "pagan"

I'm not sure why you brought up sacrificing children to Pagan deities when obviously that is not common practice in modern times. Just as stoning or executing adulterers and homosexuals isn't appropriate in modern times.

It's not an issue of people taking it "too literally," but taking the text out of context.

This is a big, dangerous problem though. When those individuals take it out of context, they are still believing that it is literal. I know that it is not literal, and I don't take it out of context. I understand the basis of the argument, I truly do. I don't agree with it, but I understand it. But there are those individuals that don't understand and think they are doing God's work by killing these people. It is out of fear and hate. Hate that is perpetuated by the conservatives that yell the loudest. The loudest ones aren't the dangerous ones; the people who take it too literally AND out of context are the most dangerous.

Conservative Christians get savaged by the far-Left every day and I don't hear any sympathy for them.

The road goes both ways. I have been called terrible names by young and old for standing up for my beliefs. I have stood next to a woman who was spit in the face by a young republican man. The same young republican man called the entire group of us fags. I was told by an old woman that she hoped I would get into a car accident. This was at a protest while George W. Bush was campaigning in my town. We were peacefully demonstrating when the inside crowd came out screaming. I'm not sure what went on in that building, but the hate that was demonstrated by those individuals was terrifying. I'm sure you will tell me that this is also not relevant. But, in my eyes, it is all part of the bigger picture. The real hate that is alive and well in this country.

Yet on this forum and elsewhere I've offered a simple solution to this problem by removing the state from regulating marriage entirely.

Thus far, no one on the other side has taken me up on that compromise. Apparently they don't want Christians to advocate for their beliefs in the public square, but it's perfectly okay for them to impose their morality by mandating state-sanctioned "marriage" for same-sex couples.

I'm not sure how you really expect this to be feasible? In 2004 Michigan passed a constitutional amendment BANNING the recognition of civil unions, same-sex or NOT.
The text of the amendment states:

To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.

This, to my dismay, was passed by 59% of Michigan voters. Apparently, 59% of Michigan disagrees with your theory. This also prohibits any civil unions (same sex or not) from obtaining a partners health insurance.

In addition, and once again to my dismay, it was upheld in 2008 by the Michigan Supreme Court. So I guess the Michigan Supreme Court doesn't agree with your theory either?

Absolutely not. Even if it's true that those feelings aren't a "choice," it still doesn't mean that a person is forced to act upon them. I have sexual urges myself, but that doesn't mean that I'm forced to engage in pre-marital sex, adultery, etc. nor would I be justified in engaging in said behaviors.

Once again, you are trying to make your belief system the one true right that the whole of America should abide by. If a homosexual person decides to not engage in those actions, THAT is their choice. Just as you abstain from those noted actions. But, many people DON'T abstain from those things. They have feelings and desires too. What you missed in my earlier reply, (and perhaps I should have worded it better) was that those feelings are no different than what a straight man would feel for a straight woman.

Yes, your fallen, corrupt heart. Human beings are totally depraved and as such our hearts betray us.

Please don't tell me I have a fallen, corrupt heart. My heart is perfectly fine just the way it is.

So you're going to force my pastor not to preach against sins like homosexuality, adultery, etc.? Where do you get the authority to tell me or anyone else what types of behaviors we may judge?

Why do you get to be the judge? So, you can judge whatever you would like, but everyone else has to agree with it, or they are automatically wrong? No one is asking you to condone their actions. No one is asking you to be a part of it. They are just asking for the same acceptance that any other member of society would receive.

Moreover, there is absolutely no proof that homosexuality is genetic or anything like that. There is only speculation which is lacking at best

Is there proof that it ISN'T genetic? The research is quite young, I will give you that, but it is promising. Although there is a lot of hate in the world towards homosexuality, it is more acceptable today to be "out." It was something that wasn't discussed for quite some time. If something is only NOW becoming acceptable (even to much dismay), then obviously the research surrounding it will also be young. Now, consider the fact that paternal twins are much more likely to share the same sexual orientation over fraternal twins, that parts of the hypothalamus is smaller in homosexual men than in heterosexual men, the different ways that a homosexual brain responds to different pheromones, the instance of left handedness in homosexuals, the ability to alter one gene in fruit flies and have them engage in homosexual behavior, etc. A lot of little things begin to add up. Not all of the research has been conclusive, I will admit that, but when it is ALL factored in, it is quite compelling. And with time, I'm sure the research WILL be more conclusive.

Why are you bringing up the judicial laws of the Mosaic Code if we aren't living in theocratic Israel?

I am not the one condemning an entire group of people because of the Bible. If you would have read my entry, you would have realized that I am not trying to justify the use of hiding behind theocratic ideology. It was illustrating the fact that this is NOT a theocratic country and that it is not applicable in modern times. But, you couldn't be bothered to read it.

We are no longer bound by the judicial laws, but we are still bound by the moral laws. Why is this so difficult to understand?

It's not. You seem to not understand that I get it. I don't know what that is so difficult to understand. You are accusing me of being anachronistic. I am not using it anything as a defense as you are implying! I'm trying to prove that it is not appropriate for modern times!! Whether you believe it or not, I hold myself to moral laws as well. They may not be YOURS, but I'm sure they are ultimately quite similar. I don't waver in what I believe is right and wrong. There is a definite line.

Again, I've read those arguments before and they're bogus ... Since you don't seem to want to listen to anything I say, perhaps reading that article will do a better job of communicating what I said.

Thank you for that link. I did read it. And actually, it goes well hand in hand with my entry. I would like to point out that the article is implying that homosexuals alone engage in oral-genital contact, genital-anal contact and oral-anal contact. When in reality, heterosexual couples also engage in those acts. It was also implying that only homosexuals are susceptible to STI's. But consider the high rate of infection of HPV. I believe 1 in 4 women have contracted HVP?

How can you say that my argument is bogus as you have not even read it? As far as someone not wanting to listen to what the other side wants to say... That is the pot calling the kettle black. You were the one who said "I'm not going to give myself another headache by listening to tortured reasoning from antinomians."

debunk = mind fully made up about something ie a closed minded person


question: why are you so obsessed with homosexuality?

question 2: why are you a christian, when it's a well known fact that jesus never exited, and you go by hearsay by people that never even lived during the alleged time as a reference for a Historical Jesus?
Answer: You're a product of your culture, and you refuse to look into the historicity of the deity your culture tells you to worship.

I am on a laptop, and while scrolling, accidentally I hit post reply. There are other points I wanted to address on your reply.

Why is this relevant? Do I have to know a murderer personally to have an opinion regarding his behavior? What about a thief or a liar? Do I have to know any such people on any personal level in order to discern that their behavior is wrong? Obviously I don't.

This is relevant. Which once again proves the point you didn't take all of my post to heart. It is relevant because it is about human beings, not what you believe sin is. These are the lives of human beings that people are trying to control politically.
A murderer takes the life of another human being. They are hurting other people with their actions. It is against the law to murder someone. What two people do in the bedroom does not hurt anyone. It does not change your life at all, so why should it even MATTER to you?? That is what I am trying to get across. It should not even be an issue! We all have different beliefs, and we all have different religions, so why should America as a whole have to conform to one group?

And what exactly is this supposed to prove? I'm not calling anyone an abomination. I'm calling a particular type of behavior an abomination. Unlike you, I'm not hitching an individual's entire identity to his sexual behavior. Sad that you're doing that to yourself.

I'm proving that we are human beings! Deserving of respect. Every time someone calls homosexuality an abomination it is hurtful. It is very hurtful. I am not saying that sexual orientation is an individual's entire identity, I am saying that it is a part of who they are. Being bisexual is a part of who I am. You don't know what it is like to be attracted to someone of the same sex, so obviously you have no idea what those feelings are like.

Does anyone hold a gun to your head and force you to commit homosexual acts?

No, because I do not choose to have those feelings. They are a part of who I am. Just like I have brown hair and green eyes. I didn't have a choice. I could dye my hair... but it would just be a facade.

I know you don't. You're in rebellion against God and His law. You've made that pretty clear.

Once again, if someone does not have the same set of beliefs as you, they are automatically wrong. I am not a rebellion. I would have to believe to rebel. I am religious in my own right. I follow the rules of my religion.

No, sin is ingrained into us--all of us. And that distorts our sexuality and perverts it into all sorts of bad ways.

Sin is subjective. I can say that till I'm blue in the face if you'd like. Sexuality is normal. It is normal for human beings to have sexual desires. What two consenting adults do is of no concern to the general population.

Where is it written that decisions and choices have to be rational? Adulterers experience shame and humiliation often, but that certainly doesn't stop people from engaging in said behavior.

It also says in the Bible that adulterers should be stoned to death. But there are divorces because of adultery every day and no one bats an eyelash at that. But then again, divorce is also forbidden. Where are the threads regarding these issues??

This is relevant. Which once again proves the point you didn't take all of my post to heart. It is relevant because it is about human beings, not what you believe sin is. These are the lives of human beings that people are trying to control politically.

I'm not trying to control anyone politically. Had you actually read what I wrote, I've repeatedly stated that civil government ought to get out of the marriage business entirely. How am I trying to control anyone? Sounds like you're running out of material to build that straw-man.

We all have different beliefs, and we all have different religions, so why should America as a whole have to conform to one group?

Should cults be allowed to sacrifice their children to pagan deities?

I'm proving that we are human beings! Deserving of respect. Every time someone calls homosexuality an abomination it is hurtful.

Where have I stated that homosexuals are not human beings? I've stated that all human beings are created in the image of God and for that reason alone are worthy of dignity and respect. Calling sinful behavior for what it is doesn't change that.

You don't know what it is like to be attracted to someone of the same sex, so obviously you have no idea what those feelings are like.

Why is that relevant to whether homosexuality is an ethical expression of human sexuality?

No, because I do not choose to have those feelings. They are a part of who I am. Just like I have brown hair and green eyes. I didn't have a choice. I could dye my hair... but it would just be a facade.

Having feelings and actually acting upon those feelings are two separate concepts altogether.

Once again, if someone does not have the same set of beliefs as you, they are automatically wrong. I am not a rebellion. I would have to believe to rebel. I am religious in my own right. I follow the rules of my religion.

Somehow I don't think that excuse is going to fly when the Day of Judgment finally comes.

Sin is subjective. I can say that till I'm blue in the face if you'd like.

Sin is not subjective. God's Law is pretty clear and reveals our sin to us.

Sexuality is normal. It is normal for human beings to have sexual desires.

I'm not debating that. I'm simply saying that not all forms of expression of those desires are equal. Some are evil and sinful.

It also says in the Bible that adulterers should be stoned to death. But there are divorces because of adultery every day and no one bats an eyelash at that. But then again, divorce is also forbidden. Where are the threads regarding these issues??

Yet another comment showing your ignorance of the Scriptures. You obviously don't understand the trifold division within the Mosaic Code and the fact that we're no longer under the judicial laws of theocratic Israel.

"You obviously don't understand the trifold division within the Mosaic Code and the fact that we're no longer under the judicial laws of theocratic Israel."

--It was the Essenes people that broke away from the laws of the old testament, they did away with sacrificing animals, and so many more jewish laws of the old bible. They were the first Christians. You can read about them in The Dead Sea Scrolls, that were written by the people who lived right there where all was to have taken place, the scrolls were written from 200 BCE all the way up to 68 AD
yet, no mention of a living Jesus by your very first Christians who were there. You (christianity) have mythology, mixed in with an actual real person known as The Teacher of Righteousness, named Yehoshua/Jesus in greek, who was crucified in 88 BCE. His legend grew to mythological proportions, especially when much later Constantine's Roman empire morphed many of the mystical religions of Mythrism , and pagan astrotheology, in to one belief, and forced this morphed mix (christianity) onto the world, in bloodshed.

They don't have to agree. The bigot part comes from the fact that he calls gay men & women "faggots" & "dykes". The idiot part comes from the fact that he chooses to quote the bible to me when it suits his needs. He does not & has never lived by the bible so there for I view my father as an idiot for quoting someting & preaching something they he does not read nor live by.

You call them a bigot and, in the same sentence, mark yourself as one by telling "everyone else" (meaning people who don't think like you do) to "keep their biggoted viewpoints to themselves." Are you not doing exactly what you accuse them of? And people call Christians hypocrites.

Most good christians know, and accept, the hypocrisy of their weak, carnal selves. Because we, as powerless sinners, claim a righteousness and a power that is not ours. We know that we say to strive to be perfect while realizing that no one can be.

The sad thing is: people like you are hypocrites and don't even know it. Or don't even care. So which is worse?

Your last statement, was indeed hypocritical.

I see what you are saying, and I respect the fact that you believe that I am a hypocrite. The difference is, I'm just asking that people keep their viewpoints to themselves. In the big-picture kind of thing. In a place like this, which is a forum where we are supposed to voice our opinions, I feel as though I am allowed to. But in the real-world, where people are trying to hinder the lives of others because of their personal beliefs, I think opinions should be kept to themselves if no one is being caused harm.

I never said "Christians" specifically, but if you would like to put your group of people into the catagory of hypocrites, I have no qualms with that. I believe that everyone should be able to live their lives freely, without fear of being persecuted for who they are, whether it be sex/race/religion/sexual preference/etc, as long as they don't push their beliefs/ideals on others, which many Christians have seemed to do well. I am not pushing my beliefs on anyone. I am stating opinion. And the difference between me and "bigots" is that bigots are angry, angry people. I'm not angry. I'm not calling anyone derogatory terms or telling anyone they are going to hell for who they are. They have those bases covered for me, thanks.

I believe marriage is sacred, between two people that love each other. The packaging in which they both come do not matter.

You win a cookie.

I have two things to say: (a) bigots aren't, by any but your own definition, angry. Nor do they have to be derogatory. It just says someone who is intolerant of what other people believe. Nothing about anger or anything else. You can't just put a label on "bigots" (or, people you think are bigots) and say they're all angry because that's what bigots are because that's not true. Your statement was hypocritical, and I stand by my judgement of it being so. You can try to sugar coat it by saying "In a place like this, which is a forum where we are supposed to voice our opinions, I feel as though I am allowed to. But in the real-world, where people are trying to hinder the lives of others because of their personal beliefs, I think opinions should be kept to themselves" but is that not the exact opposite of what this country stands for? Maybe you don't live in America (I don't know), but I do and I love my freedom of speech. I don't think that just because I'm not in a bloop forum that I shouldn't be able to say what I believe just because somebody might be offended by it. And I should be able to say it without someone who doesn't even know me calling me a bigot and assuming I'm just an angry person. Would you? I doubt it.

and (b) you don't believe marriage is sacred. you believe marriage should be open to everyone. That is not sacred. Something being sacred is something that's devoted to a religious purpose (which is not you) or something that is protected (which is not you), or something that is revered (which is not you). Neither one of those apply to the statements you've made. If you thought it was of religious importance, we probably wouldn't even be having this conversation. If you thought it was something to be protected, you wouldn't be trying to open it up for everyone to misuse. If you thought it was something to be revered, then you would accept it as it is and as it always has been. You want to change what it has been for hundreds of years. That is not something that is sacred to you. It just doesn't fit the bill.

Now if only everyone else could see it that way! They don't need to agree, but they need to keep their biggoted viewpoints to themselves.

So the only opinions that ought to be expressed are those with which you agree? I'm sorry, what was that about being "open-minded" and all?

That isn't what I meant at all. I think everyone should keep it to themselves. In a forum setting, I understand speaking your mind. What I do not understand is rioters who feel the need to scream and yell obscenities at GLBT families walking at Pride with their children. It is wrong, and how someone else lives is none of their business as long is no one is being harmed. I am a product of a GLBT family, and I can safely say I came out unscathed.