CA allows g4y marriage

Quote :

Like all of you Christians haven't popped your woman's poope

r.

I don't get how this is connected. It's still a man-woman act. What's unnatural about that?

Toho - I love that Bird poster!! Ah, PC fools!!

tohostudios wrote:

What's so sacred about the title of "marriage"?

As someone posted earlier, with a 50% divorce rate, hasn't society already pretty much made the "sanctity" of the concept obsolete?

Marriage isn't sacred in the least. All that happens is you share all your stuff and live in the same house.

scottmitchell74 wrote:

Toho - I love that Bird poster!! Ah, PC fools!!

I'd had that pic as part of my 45+ pic screensaver for years and someone got upset because of the "retard" reference. My boss had to watch me delete it to satisfy HR.

tohostudios wrote:

What's so sacred about the title of "marriage"?

As someone posted earlier, with a 50% divorce rate, hasn't society already pretty much made the "sanctity" of the concept obsolete?

Doesn't change what it is or stands for. Rotten apples will always spoil a bunch.

What specifically makes it "rotten"? Because it's sinful?

tohostudios wrote:

Bottom line for me is this:

I don't think homosexuals are any more sinful than any other representative of homo sapiens. We all are born into sin and many continue to practice their pet sin throughout their lives.

Why demonize this particular segment of mankind?

It's not that they're sinful but the lack of repentance or the mass acceptance there of. If a married man is doing something immoral i will point it out as well.

tohostudios wrote:

What specifically makes it "rotten"? Because it's sinful?

The rotten part is the dragging the name through the mud factor that is why some threw that aruement my way right? People look down on it now. As long as some still hold it sacred like it always had been it will remain.

So by that logic, non-Christians shouldn't be allowed to marry? By the Christian doctrine, all humans are born sinful and non-Christians by definition are "unrepentant" and therefore shouldn't be allowed to marry?

See how slippery this slope is? Precisely why the government should keep out IMO.

troublezone wrote:

tohostudios wrote:

What specifically makes it "rotten"? Because it's sinful?

The rotten part is the dragging the name through the mud factor that is why some threw that aruement my way right? People look down on it now. As long as some still hold it sacred like it always had been it will remain.

I'm not sure I understand this post.

BTW, for what it's worth, I consider myself a Christian however this is just one of many issues where I differentiate myself from "Conservative Christians". I think Conservatives get too wrapped up in issues like this (which I consider "minutia") instead of focusing on more important issues.

spectrefate wrote:

troublezone wrote:

but this was done the right way and the voters have spoken.

Yes. Yes they have.

In his own words he is for civil union.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73oZ_pe1MZ8&feature=related

tohostudios wrote:

So by that logic, non-Christians shouldn't be allowed to marry? By the Christian doctrine, all humans are born sinful and non-Christians by definition are "unrepentant" and therefore shouldn't be allowed to marry?

See how slippery this slope is? Precisely why the government should keep out IMO.

Yes but that's why there is the cheap Vegas weddings or the one's done by a judge not priest or pastor. The Godless weddings are viable in todays society but i'm talking about the traditional Christian marriage that is and will remain sacred 'til the end.

tohostudios wrote:

BTW, for what it's worth, I consider myself a Christian however this is just one of many issues where I differentiate myself from "Conservative Christians". I think Conservatives get too wrapped up in issues like this (which I consider "minutia") instead of focusing on more important issues.

As a Christian which you stated you are, do you think going against God's will is not important? I know there are other issus in the world and they all need to be addressed.

troublezone wrote:

tohostudios wrote:

BTW, for what it's worth, I consider myself a Christian however this is just one of many issues where I differentiate myself from "Conservative Christians". I think Conservatives get too wrapped up in issues like this (which I consider "minutia") instead of focusing on more important issues.

As a Christian which you stated you are, do you think going against God's will is not important? I know there are other issus in the world and they all need to be addressed.

What I'm saying is if government can legislate who can and can't get married based on the Christian codex, then all the groups I've mentioned previously (liars, gluttons, enviers, etc) should also be prohibited from getting "married" or else we're ascribing a "degree" to sins.

It's just way too easy to give in to the opposition an let them have their way. I am respectful of other people opinions because they have that right but at the same time i need to voice my opinion.

Love the sinner; hate the sin. That's what I believe, and I'll leave it at that.

xyz wrote:

Love the sinner; hate the sin. That's what I believe, and I'll leave it at that.

I wholeheartedly agree.

What I object to is "legislating" the sin.

And TZ, I guess we just have to agree to disagree on this issue. I appreciate the civil discussion but it's becoming obvious it's not getting us anywhere so I'm bowing out.

Again, thanks for keeping a potentially volatile discussion civil...

tohostudios wrote:

troublezone wrote:

tohostudios wrote:

BTW, for what it's worth, I consider myself a Christian however this is just one of many issues where I differentiate myself from "Conservative Christians". I think Conservatives get too wrapped up in issues like this (which I consider "minutia") instead of focusing on more important issues.

As a Christian which you stated you are, do you think going against God's will is not important? I know there are other issus in the world and they all need to be addressed.

What I'm saying is if government can legislate who can and can't get married based on the Christian codex, then all the groups I've mentioned previously (liars, gluttons, enviers, etc) should also be prohibited from getting "married" or else we're ascribing a "degree" to sins.

That's true but the essence of marriage is about family and we were made as male and female and that is the issue at hand. The sin factor is not really the only thing wrong with it. It's a trend that will lead to another trend if you get what i'm saying.

tohostudios wrote:

xyz wrote:

Love the sinner; hate the sin. That's what I believe, and I'll leave it at that.

I wholeheartedly agree.

What I object to is "legislating" the sin.

And TZ, I guess we just have to agree to disagree on this issue. I appreciate the civil discussion but it's becoming obvious it's not getting us anywhere so I'm bowing out.

Again, thanks for keeping a potentially volatile discussion civil...

No problem man. I like everyone here and i'm not trying to be anyone's enemy but i needed to voice my opinion.

xyz wrote:

Love the sinner; hate the sin. That's what I believe, and I'll leave it at that.

I don't hate them like i said before. Overlooking my beliefs to appease someone else is doing myself an injustice.

merry marriage will happen. maybe not today, or even 5 years from now. but it will happen. just as we ended segregation & gave women the right to vote. we will continue to evolve. it's just a matter of time.

troublezone wrote:

tohostudios wrote:

xyz wrote:

Love the sinner; hate the sin. That's what I believe, and I'll leave it at that.

I wholeheartedly agree.

What I object to is "legislating" the sin.

And TZ, I guess we just have to agree to disagree on this issue. I appreciate the civil discussion but it's becoming obvious it's not getting us anywhere so I'm bowing out.

Again, thanks for keeping a potentially volatile discussion civil...

No problem man. I like everyone here and i'm not trying to be anyone's enemy but i needed to voice my opinion.

Totally understood bro.

mc666 wrote:

merry marriage will happen. maybe not today, or even 5 years from now. but it will happen. just as we ended segregation & gave women the right to vote. we will continue to evolve. it's just a matter of time.

mc666 wrote:

merry marriage will happen. maybe not today, or even 5 years from now. but it will happen. just as we ended segregation & gave women the right to vote. we will continue to evolve. it's just a matter of time.

WW3 says we won't.