Gay "marriage" supporters - what is your endgame?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I doubt they asked for two grooms. The average wedding cake does not have dolls on it.

When you say "they asked", it sounds like there was an actual "they". As I read http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/02/indianas-memories-pizza-wouldnt-cater-gay-wedding-gets-40k-in-crowdfunding/, the issue was the answer to a hypothetical question from a TV reporter. My point was not the detail, but that I wish we could concentrate on avoiding confrontation rather than seeking it.

[Anonymous]

The answer to the "Old" Testament question is very simple: Christians ignore big chunks of it because doing things like avoiding pork, having separate meat and dairy dishes, checking for shatnez, keeping taharas hamishpacha, and putting all the lights on timers and not carrying muktzeh on Shabbos is too inconvenient and complicated to learn. Therefore, that whole annoying bit was thrown out to make it easier to get converts, then justified after the fact.

As far as I'm concerned, Orthodox Jews are the only group that get to claim a legitimate religious objection to gay marriage based on the Bible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I doubt they asked for two grooms. The average wedding cake does not have dolls on it.

When you say "they asked", it sounds like there was an actual "they". As I read http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/02/indianas-memories-pizza-wouldnt-cater-gay-wedding-gets-40k-in-crowdfunding/, the issue was the answer to a hypothetical question from a TV reporter. My point was not the detail, but that I wish we could concentrate on avoiding confrontation rather than seeking it.

Ok but if it's just a cake, then it's just a cake, right? There is no speech involved in frosting roses.

[Anonymous]

If Pennsylvania gets a OP gov and legislature, are they going to require that Philadelphia change its name to something that doesn't mean brotherly love? Or is that already on Congress's agenda.

OMG, there is also a Philadelphia in Indiana; and in Mississippi of all places!

[Anonymous]

^^^ not OP, GOP.

[Anonymous]

My end game? Do you recall Waclaw Havel? I want to marry someone like him. My end game is to have a Czech mate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My end game? Do you recall Waclaw Havel? I want to marry someone like him. My end game is to have a Czech mate.

Why do you spell his name in Polish, if what you want is a Czech mate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My end game? Do you recall Waclaw Havel? I want to marry someone like him. My end game is to have a Czech mate.

Why do you spell his name in Polish, if what you want is a Czech mate?

Googled Havel and that was the first spelling that came up. I thought I remembered Vaclav, but chalked it up to incipient alzheimer's. Do I lose points on the pun for applying too much Polish? I guess that's what I get for Russian too much.


Jeff, I beg for mercy. I can't even blame it on alcohol; I haven't had a drink all evening. Dementia periodica.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The answer to the "Old" Testament question is very simple: Christians ignore big chunks of it because doing things like avoiding pork, having separate meat and dairy dishes, checking for shatnez, keeping taharas hamishpacha, and putting all the lights on timers and not carrying muktzeh on Shabbos is too inconvenient and complicated to learn. Therefore, that whole annoying bit was thrown out to make it easier to get converts, then justified after the fact.

As far as I'm concerned, Orthodox Jews are the only group that get to claim a legitimate religious objection to gay marriage based on the Bible.

Love this.

[Anonymous]

Sexual deviants as a protected class is a major symbol of our moral and cultural decline.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sexual deviants as a protected class is a major symbol of our moral and cultural decline.

Your daddy said the same thing about race mixing.

[Anonymous]

Oh my. It's not even really about the sex, and that seems to be the only thing people on this thread care about. Gay sex should be OK because nobody else who isn't in the couple should tell someone else how to have sex, but that's really a pretty small part of the overall point. This is about equal rights for all people. Two people who wish to commit their lives to each other in a legal way that grants their partnership the recognition and privileges afforded to heterosexual married couples should have the right to do so. Legal marriage and religious marriage are separate in the US, so I certainly wouldn't support forcing a religion or a clergy person to recognize/perform a marriage that's against their beliefs, but all people should have the same basic legal rights and ability to make the same choices under the law of the land, which in the case of this nation is meant to be secular. What should person A's religious beliefs have to do with whether and how person B can marry person C in a different religion or no religion at all?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sexual deviants as a protected class is a major symbol of our moral and cultural decline.

Your daddy says the same thing about race mixing.

FFY

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Christ was silent where it comes to homosexuality, just as he was on what kind of fabric one could wear or how to trim one's beard.

So again, you are picking and choosing rather arbitrarily which parts of the Old Testament to follow versus which ones to discard.

But Christ was not silent on adultery, or sexual immorality, and other such sins.

You are making a logical fallacy by assuming that because Jesus did not specifically address all 600+ Mosaic Laws in the New Testament, then his silence equates to him condoning those sins he did not mention.

You and others continue to try and wiggle out from Christianity's bible-based non-acceptance of homosexuality. You keep trying to twist the bible into saying what it does not, that the abominable behavior of homosexuality --a person attempting to mate with someone of the same sex as if it is somehow normal and how God intended, is now ok and wonderful because two people, often drug or alcohol addicted, feel like they are in love with each other so it is ok to do what God already said is an abomination.

God created, in the beginning, male and female, and for them to be joined together. It is in the first book of the Bible. That is elementary, Christianity-101 stuff but evil people who do not want to accept what the bible says concerning sexual immorality cannot or will not understand.

People are seriously deluded when they think true Christians are going to say "Okay, forget the bible. All these rainbow flag waving people must be right and the bible wrong because they feel like they are in love with each other and love is good so they must be good because they love each other."

Even murderers, and liars, and child molesters, even when they love someone and do kindness to their loved ones, does not change the fact that they are still evil because they have not repented of their sins and done exactly as Jesus commanded: Go, and sin no more.

Homosexuality, as is adultery, is sin. You cannot weasel or wiggle your way out from this clear and explicit declaration in the bible.

If you don't believe, then what the bible says is irrelevant. You say this as if the bible is somehow universal truth or mandatory for all, and the fact is that it isn't. It's just a membership charter for one club. There are tons of others, and no one has to be a member of this one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Sometimes out of economic necessity a man would sell his daughter into slavery. Of course no father would want to do that but in biblical times there was no social security, no welfare, no unemployment agency to tide one over until better times came. You either sold your daughter into slavery so as to replace a dead milk cow which was the only source of income, or everyone starves to death.

Those were very different and difficult times. Notice the statute is how to treat the slave justly. It does not say "And you can beat her near to death if it pleases you oh happy slave owner."

#5 Relevance to modern times

Of course the statutes on slavery do not apply to these modern times because wonderful capitalism and our advanced economies of scale render unnecessary selling one's daughter into slavery.

It sounds like you are saying that there are valid reasons to disregard the bible, and then there are invalid ones. You think economic evolution is reason enough. Who is to make that judgment? You?