100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Labeling Pro-Marriage Groups as 'Hateful' Must End | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I don't have any fears about the human race becoming extinct..I worry about people having more children than they can really "afford." (Physically and emotionally.) yeah, I do too that wasnt really my point,,,but apparently my point is not being made well enough we have no reason to not ENCOURAGE heterosexual activity being we need it to exist that was my point we have no reason, on the otherhand , to ENCOURAGE homosexual activity being there is no such societal impact that comes from such activity,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
remove the sex, and we have no issues heterosexual sex is MANDATORY, some regulation and encouragement on the topic is responsible for the government and an attempt at securing our FAMILIES and children (Which come from heterosexual sex) homosexual sex is not MANDATORY, regulating it or encouraging it is irresponsible for government to do and secures NOTHING for families or children (ie ,,society)  The above-quoted statement doesn't make sense to me. it heterosexuals do not have sex, noone(hetero or homo) will exist its a MANDATORY part of the continuing human race regulating it in some manner is like regulating food, which we also need, but want to keep safe so as not to contaiminate people if homosexuals do not have sex, there is no affect on anyone, or on the existence of humans, its not a MANDATORY part of the continuing human race, its merely a choice that fulfills self with no extending consequences or affects anywhere else,,, comparing homosexual sex to heterosexual sex is preposterous,,,and forcing a government to make them 'equal' behaviors is equally preposterous,,,, the day the government decides to allow one homosexual to leave another because he wasnt sexually faithful is the day that an adult brother and sister should be able to bring up the same charge against each other because, like I have repeatedly been told, the children have nothing to do with the purpose of MARRIAGE since having children or wanting children are not necessarily requirements for heterosexuals to marry we likewise cant prove that all adult siblings will want or have children, and should likewise not be making that our concern where 'marriage' is concerned, since marriage is supposedly not having anything to do with procreation or fertility,,,,, Having sex is not mandatory. Having children is not mandatory. Having sex solely for the purpose of having children is not mandatory. These are all choices that we make. So all this mandatory talk is not making sense. really> what happens if all heterosexual sex stops? Hmm...I'm getting a visual of Sodom and Gomorrah. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Tue 08/28/12 07:38 AM
|
|
I don't have any fears about the human race becoming extinct..I worry about people having more children than they can really "afford." (Physically and emotionally.) yeah, I do too that wasnt really my point,,,but apparently my point is not being made well enough we have no reason to not ENCOURAGE heterosexual activity being we need it to exist that was my point we have no reason, on the otherhand , to ENCOURAGE homosexual activity being there is no such societal impact that comes from such activity,,, sigh LIFE is valuable, therefore creating LIFE is a valuable ability we should cherish and honor,, YES that doesnt mean that those who dont create life dont have a 'value' of their own its like revering a veteran, they have a special 'value' and that doesnt mean people in other jobs dont also have 'value', yet we give a special consideration to vets in many areas of life and of our laws Im not sure how people keep twisting what Im saying and posting what I have NEVER SAID to debate my point,,, recap the VALUE of the CREATION OF LIFE does not make those who dont or havent created life VALUELESS YET it does deserve a UNIQUE Reverence and consideration because of its SIGNIFICANCE And NECESSITY, to creating lives, ergo creating CHIDLREN, ergo creating CITIZENS< who create COMMUNITIES who make up a COUNTRY,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's different to put the emphasis on the ability to "breed." What does a kennel owner do with dogs who can't "produce?"...Is our value determined by our ability to "bear fruit?" And populate the planet?...Are we deemed "useless" and a drain on society if we can't "produce" or can no longer "produce?".. Well said. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
remove the sex, and we have no issues heterosexual sex is MANDATORY, some regulation and encouragement on the topic is responsible for the government and an attempt at securing our FAMILIES and children (Which come from heterosexual sex) homosexual sex is not MANDATORY, regulating it or encouraging it is irresponsible for government to do and secures NOTHING for families or children (ie ,,society) The above-quoted statement doesn't make sense to me. it heterosexuals do not have sex, noone(hetero or homo) will exist its a MANDATORY part of the continuing human race regulating it in some manner is like regulating food, which we also need, but want to keep safe so as not to contaiminate people if homosexuals do not have sex, there is no affect on anyone, or on the existence of humans, its not a MANDATORY part of the continuing human race, its merely a choice that fulfills self with no extending consequences or affects anywhere else,,, comparing homosexual sex to heterosexual sex is preposterous,,,and forcing a government to make them 'equal' behaviors is equally preposterous,,,, the day the government decides to allow one homosexual to leave another because he wasnt sexually faithful is the day that an adult brother and sister should be able to bring up the same charge against each other because, like I have repeatedly been told, the children have nothing to do with the purpose of MARRIAGE since having children or wanting children are not necessarily requirements for heterosexuals to marry we likewise cant prove that all adult siblings will want or have children, and should likewise not be making that our concern where 'marriage' is concerned, since marriage is supposedly not having anything to do with procreation or fertility,,,,, Having sex is not mandatory. Having children is not mandatory. Having sex solely for the purpose of having children is not mandatory. These are all choices that we make. So all this mandatory talk is not making sense. really> what happens if all heterosexual sex stops? Hmm...I'm getting a visual of Sodom and Gomorrah. Were there not children in those cities? Where did they come from? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
GreenEyes48
on
Tue 08/28/12 08:40 AM
|
|
msharmony...I try to focus on "quality" over "quantity." (As in "quality of life" in this case.)...What kind of life and world will we be handing over to our children?...There is so much "strife" and turmoil today. So many unresolved issues...As responsible adults and caretakers of the planet it seems like we should do more to try to resolve the problems before we keep bringing more and more new children into the world...From what you've written it's obvious that you try to find solutions through your religious beliefs and framework...Other people seek solutions based on different sets of beliefs...My heart and my conscience won't let me label gay people as "defects" or "freaks of nature" or "notorious sinners" and so on...If we're all suppose to be created by God why are some people born with an attraction to their same sex? Then told that they are "bad" for being this way? None of this makes a bit of sense to me!....What if the situation were reversed? What if we were told that we were "bad" and "sinners" for having an attraction to the opposite sex?...I don't know about you but I'd say: "Hey this isn't fair! I was just born this way! I didn't ask to be attracted to the opposite sex! If it's so bad to be this way then why was I made this way?"....Where is some sense of accountability when it comes to the sexual inclinations we seem to be born with?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't have any fears about the human race becoming extinct..I worry about people having more children than they can really "afford." (Physically and emotionally.) yeah, I do too that wasnt really my point,,,but apparently my point is not being made well enough we have no reason to not ENCOURAGE heterosexual activity being we need it to exist that was my point we have no reason, on the otherhand , to ENCOURAGE homosexual activity being there is no such societal impact that comes from such activity,,, sigh LIFE is valuable, therefore creating LIFE is a valuable ability we should cherish and honor,, YES that doesnt mean that those who dont create life dont have a 'value' of their own its like revering a veteran, they have a special 'value' and that doesnt mean people in other jobs dont also have 'value', yet we give a special consideration to vets in many areas of life and of our laws Im not sure how people keep twisting what Im saying and posting what I have NEVER SAID to debate my point,,, recap the VALUE of the CREATION OF LIFE does not make those who dont or havent created life VALUELESS YET it does deserve a UNIQUE Reverence and consideration because of its SIGNIFICANCE And NECESSITY, to creating lives, ergo creating CHIDLREN, ergo creating CITIZENS< who create COMMUNITIES who make up a COUNTRY,,,, You've been going on and on about how homosexual couples provide no value to society because they cannot have children. So it would seem that you believe they don't have value and that you place a higher value on those who can have children. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From what you've written it's obvious that you try to find solutions through your religious beliefs and framework...Other people seek solutions based on different sets of beliefs... greeneyes, this is the problem. msharmony is working with one set of beliefs and others on this thread are working with other beliefs. the problem is that msharmony's beliefs include guidelines for marriage that she defends. the other beliefs want msharmony to accept marriage outside of the beliefs she has if a church (or any organization for that matter) has rules, and the members are to follow those rules, and certain privileges come with being a member, than the privileges can only be enjoyed by the members following the rules IMHO others who want the privileges can obey the rules or do without. they shouldn't ask for the privileges and not follow the rules |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's different to put the emphasis on the ability to "breed." What does a kennel owner do with dogs who can't "produce?"...Is our value determined by our ability to "bear fruit?" And populate the planet?...Are we deemed "useless" and a drain on society if we can't "produce" or can no longer "produce?".. Well said. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From what you've written it's obvious that you try to find solutions through your religious beliefs and framework...Other people seek solutions based on different sets of beliefs... greeneyes, this is the problem. msharmony is working with one set of beliefs and others on this thread are working with other beliefs. the problem is that msharmony's beliefs include guidelines for marriage that she defends. the other beliefs want msharmony to accept marriage outside of the beliefs she has if a church (or any organization for that matter) has rules, and the members are to follow those rules, and certain privileges come with being a member, than the privileges can only be enjoyed by the members following the rules IMHO others who want the privileges can obey the rules or do without. they shouldn't ask for the privileges and not follow the rules The other issue is that msharmony (or anyone who feels the same as she does) wants everyone else to conform to those guidelines she follows. Most people who are not as religious as her aren't going to conform. I wouldn't have an issue with someone who is following their guidelines and doesn't agree with something like same sex marriage. I do have a problem when they try to push others to conform to those same guidelines. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From what you've written it's obvious that you try to find solutions through your religious beliefs and framework...Other people seek solutions based on different sets of beliefs... greeneyes, this is the problem. msharmony is working with one set of beliefs and others on this thread are working with other beliefs. the problem is that msharmony's beliefs include guidelines for marriage that she defends. the other beliefs want msharmony to accept marriage outside of the beliefs she has if a church (or any organization for that matter) has rules, and the members are to follow those rules, and certain privileges come with being a member, than the privileges can only be enjoyed by the members following the rules IMHO others who want the privileges can obey the rules or do without. they shouldn't ask for the privileges and not follow the rules The other issue is that msharmony (or anyone who feels the same as she does) wants everyone else to conform to those guidelines she follows. Most people who are not as religious as her aren't going to conform. I wouldn't have an issue with someone who is following their guidelines and doesn't agree with something like same sex marriage. I do have a problem when they try to push others to conform to those same guidelines. it seems the issue is people who don't believe as she does want her to allow them to benefit from one of the privileges of her beliefs, without them having to follow the rules of her belief |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From what you've written it's obvious that you try to find solutions through your religious beliefs and framework...Other people seek solutions based on different sets of beliefs... greeneyes, this is the problem. msharmony is working with one set of beliefs and others on this thread are working with other beliefs. the problem is that msharmony's beliefs include guidelines for marriage that she defends. the other beliefs want msharmony to accept marriage outside of the beliefs she has if a church (or any organization for that matter) has rules, and the members are to follow those rules, and certain privileges come with being a member, than the privileges can only be enjoyed by the members following the rules IMHO others who want the privileges can obey the rules or do without. they shouldn't ask for the privileges and not follow the rules The other issue is that msharmony (or anyone who feels the same as she does) wants everyone else to conform to those guidelines she follows. Most people who are not as religious as her aren't going to conform. I wouldn't have an issue with someone who is following their guidelines and doesn't agree with something like same sex marriage. I do have a problem when they try to push others to conform to those same guidelines. So then it's ok for those who want same sex marraige to push those who don't to conform with their guidelines? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From what you've written it's obvious that you try to find solutions through your religious beliefs and framework...Other people seek solutions based on different sets of beliefs... greeneyes, this is the problem. msharmony is working with one set of beliefs and others on this thread are working with other beliefs. the problem is that msharmony's beliefs include guidelines for marriage that she defends. the other beliefs want msharmony to accept marriage outside of the beliefs she has if a church (or any organization for that matter) has rules, and the members are to follow those rules, and certain privileges come with being a member, than the privileges can only be enjoyed by the members following the rules IMHO others who want the privileges can obey the rules or do without. they shouldn't ask for the privileges and not follow the rules |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From what you've written it's obvious that you try to find solutions through your religious beliefs and framework...Other people seek solutions based on different sets of beliefs... greeneyes, this is the problem. msharmony is working with one set of beliefs and others on this thread are working with other beliefs. the problem is that msharmony's beliefs include guidelines for marriage that she defends. the other beliefs want msharmony to accept marriage outside of the beliefs she has if a church (or any organization for that matter) has rules, and the members are to follow those rules, and certain privileges come with being a member, than the privileges can only be enjoyed by the members following the rules IMHO others who want the privileges can obey the rules or do without. they shouldn't ask for the privileges and not follow the rules The other issue is that msharmony (or anyone who feels the same as she does) wants everyone else to conform to those guidelines she follows. Most people who are not as religious as her aren't going to conform. I wouldn't have an issue with someone who is following their guidelines and doesn't agree with something like same sex marriage. I do have a problem when they try to push others to conform to those same guidelines. it seems the issue is people who don't believe as she does want her to allow them to benefit from one of the privileges of her beliefs, without them having to follow the rules of her belief And she wants to deny people the ability to do things based on her own beliefs. She wants people to follow her beliefs, even if they aren't religious. I see that as being a problem when people try to deny others based on their own religious beliefs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From what you've written it's obvious that you try to find solutions through your religious beliefs and framework...Other people seek solutions based on different sets of beliefs... greeneyes, this is the problem. msharmony is working with one set of beliefs and others on this thread are working with other beliefs. the problem is that msharmony's beliefs include guidelines for marriage that she defends. the other beliefs want msharmony to accept marriage outside of the beliefs she has if a church (or any organization for that matter) has rules, and the members are to follow those rules, and certain privileges come with being a member, than the privileges can only be enjoyed by the members following the rules IMHO others who want the privileges can obey the rules or do without. they shouldn't ask for the privileges and not follow the rules The other issue is that msharmony (or anyone who feels the same as she does) wants everyone else to conform to those guidelines she follows. Most people who are not as religious as her aren't going to conform. I wouldn't have an issue with someone who is following their guidelines and doesn't agree with something like same sex marriage. I do have a problem when they try to push others to conform to those same guidelines. So then it's ok for those who want same sex marraige to push those who don't to conform with their guidelines? No one is saying everyone has to agree with same sex marriage. I just don't believe it's right to deny two adults the ability to marry based on antiquated religious beliefs that not everyone follows. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No one is saying everyone has to agree with same sex marriage. I just don't believe it's right to deny two adults the ability to marry based on antiquated religious beliefs that not everyone follows. it's those antiquated religious beliefs that instituted the marriage contract to begin with. if anyone wishes to be a part of that, they should join in those antiquated religious beliefs and have at it |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From what you've written it's obvious that you try to find solutions through your religious beliefs and framework...Other people seek solutions based on different sets of beliefs... greeneyes, this is the problem. msharmony is working with one set of beliefs and others on this thread are working with other beliefs. the problem is that msharmony's beliefs include guidelines for marriage that she defends. the other beliefs want msharmony to accept marriage outside of the beliefs she has if a church (or any organization for that matter) has rules, and the members are to follow those rules, and certain privileges come with being a member, than the privileges can only be enjoyed by the members following the rules IMHO others who want the privileges can obey the rules or do without. they shouldn't ask for the privileges and not follow the rules The other issue is that msharmony (or anyone who feels the same as she does) wants everyone else to conform to those guidelines she follows. Most people who are not as religious as her aren't going to conform. I wouldn't have an issue with someone who is following their guidelines and doesn't agree with something like same sex marriage. I do have a problem when they try to push others to conform to those same guidelines. So then it's ok for those who want same sex marraige to push those who don't to conform with their guidelines? No one is saying everyone has to agree with same sex marriage. I just don't believe it's right to deny two adults the ability to marry based on antiquated religious beliefs that not everyone follows. again marriage is not a 'right' rights are not contingent on familial relationships they are afforded to INDIVIDUALS , not COUPLES I dont think its 'right' for government to be forced to make homosexual sex a LEGAL EXPECTATION for ANY REASON I likewise dont believe not doing so keeps homosexuals from having the same 'rights' to their relationship as anyone else I believe its practical/logical, to keep the issue about 'rights' and address those rights people feel are restricted to homosexual couples that are not for heterosexual couples sexual practices have nothing to do with said 'rights' those rights can be addressed by adding 'civil union' to our idea of legally binding relationships the same way we added 'dissolution' to our idea of ways to end a legally binding relationship (marriage) take the insistence on legally expected homosexual relations out of the equation, and talk 'rights' and there is nothing left to really debate,,,,,except for those whose intent and passion is to FORCE government to EQUATE homosexual activity with heterosexual activity and stop AKNOWLEDGING the difference in their social value,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Tue 08/28/12 09:33 AM
|
|
From what you've written it's obvious that you try to find solutions through your religious beliefs and framework...Other people seek solutions based on different sets of beliefs... greeneyes, this is the problem. msharmony is working with one set of beliefs and others on this thread are working with other beliefs. the problem is that msharmony's beliefs include guidelines for marriage that she defends. the other beliefs want msharmony to accept marriage outside of the beliefs she has if a church (or any organization for that matter) has rules, and the members are to follow those rules, and certain privileges come with being a member, than the privileges can only be enjoyed by the members following the rules IMHO others who want the privileges can obey the rules or do without. they shouldn't ask for the privileges and not follow the rules The other issue is that msharmony (or anyone who feels the same as she does) wants everyone else to conform to those guidelines she follows. Most people who are not as religious as her aren't going to conform. I wouldn't have an issue with someone who is following their guidelines and doesn't agree with something like same sex marriage. I do have a problem when they try to push others to conform to those same guidelines. it seems the issue is people who don't believe as she does want her to allow them to benefit from one of the privileges of her beliefs, without them having to follow the rules of her belief And she wants to deny people the ability to do things based on her own beliefs. She wants people to follow her beliefs, even if they aren't religious. I see that as being a problem when people try to deny others based on their own religious beliefs. marriage isnt something I can 'do' or you can 'do' marriage is a LEGAL PROCESS That requires participation of others and a LEGAL documentation and marriage is just a relationship that the GOVERNMENT puts requirements on noone is denying homosexuals the right to 'do' anything they are protesting the insistence that the GOVERNMENT take a part in what they choose to do,,,, denying them the right to 'do' what they want would be wishing for sodomy or homosexuality to be illegal which NOONE here has suggested and I would equally oppose,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No one is saying everyone has to agree with same sex marriage. I just don't believe it's right to deny two adults the ability to marry based on antiquated religious beliefs that not everyone follows. it's those antiquated religious beliefs that instituted the marriage contract to begin with. if anyone wishes to be a part of that, they should join in those antiquated religious beliefs and have at it Many non-religious straight couples marry each other. Do you have a problem with that, too? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I understand what you're saying...I know religions come with a set of mandates and rules. But sometimes it's good to try to step outside the "box" a little bit (if possible) in order to gain a wider view and some other perspectives. This is how I feel anyway...I've learned a few things from being here. It's a good discussion. Thanks to all! that is exactly why christianity has so many branches. each church stepped outside of the "box" a little bit and came up with their own set of rules |
|
|
|
|
