Gay Marriage Still Unpopular in U.S.

reply to post by whaaa


Here is one explanation - source

A quick search will give you many sources to confirm this fact.

Originally posted by FearNoEvil
reply to post by whaaa

 

Here is one explanation - source

A quick search will give you many sources to confirm this fact.

Yeah right! I read the link, thanks. Jesus never said to ignore the OT to my knowledge. The idea to ignore the OT was invented by a bunch of clerics that were just to lazy to follow the much stricter laws. Such convienient revelations huh?

Topic....the gospel according to whaaa....mind your own business and a lot of interpersonal dischord can be avoided. "Do unto others" sound familiar?

[edit on 26-5-2010 by whaaa]

reply to post by whaaa


The OT is the Word of God but Christians are only held to the NT because Jesus fulfilled the law. There are many OT commands that were reinstated in the NT but mainly all commands can be obeyed if we obeyed just two...

And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
Mark 12:29-31 KJV



[edit on 26-5-2010 by FearNoEvil]

Originally posted by FearNoEvil
And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
Mark 12:29-31 KJV

Since there are no commandments greater than these, doesn't it strike you odd that most Christians are sinning worse than homosexuals but then turn around and act all hollier-than-thou?

reply to post by Nutter


"Since there are no commandments greater than these, doesn't it strike you odd that most Christians are sinning worse than homosexuals but then turn around and act all hollier-than-thou?"

Some things that you judge as sin, God may not.

Only God knows the true intentions of a persons heart.

I'll let Him be the judge of who sins and who doesn't.

When His chastisement comes on me, I run to Him, not away from Him.

It takes practice to get good at anything hard.

Originally posted by FearNoEvil





When His chastisement comes on me, I run to Him, not away from Him.

It takes practice to get good at anything hard.

Interesting choice of words.

reply to post by whaaa


I see what you mean. Ahhhhhh

I'll leave it unedited just for your edification.

Peace out

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

Nope, just cause your past the age of sexual maturity, doesn't mean your an adult.

~Keeper

Why?

Because it is law? 30 years ago and sill in many other countries homosexuality is against the law, so why not how? Are you suggesting that society sets ethical standards?

I’m just trying to understand why we change some and see them as a norm now and others we are still wanting to protect.

Why?

Because it is law? 30 years ago and sill in many other countries homosexuality is against the law, so why not how? Are you suggesting that society sets ethical standards?

I’m just trying to understand why we change some and see them as a norm now and others we are still wanting to protect.

The slow but steady creep of moral relativism. Morals not defined by a higher authority are open to revision and slowly leads to moral entropy where anything is fine as long as it makes you happy and where no one has the right to point out the errors in another persons actions.

reply to post by UberL33t


What is popular is not necessarily what is right. Slavery was quite popular back in the day that makes it no less morally repugnant.

As a nation we are meant to defend the rights of the minority against the majority, that's why we are a Constitutional Republic and NOT a democracy (mob rule). I am amazed that so many people, in this poll at least, are against the application of equal rights.

What is popular is not necessarily what is right. Slavery was quite popular back in the day that makes it no less morally repugnant.

Agreed, and the acceptance of homosexuality, adultery, divorce is becoming more popular as time goes on. There are numerous television shows that glamorize and indoctrinate acceptance of these "lifestyle choices". What is popular is not necessarily right,... exactly.

Furthermore these lifestyles decrease the cohesion of the family unit and increase dependence upon the state,... of course we know that is all part of the plan.

Peace

reply to post by slane69


I find it absurd for someone with the number 69 in their name to bring up issues of moral or sexual morality for obvious reasons.


1) For most homosexuals their sexual orientation is NOT a choice or a lifestyle. Most were born that way.

2) Who are you to tell two consenting adults who they can and cannot marry? It is the choice of those involved in the relationship whether they want to be married not the choice of the State or Government.

All homosexuals want is equal rights and I fail to see how equal rights for the oppressed has any bearing on adultery becoming okay or any other sexual morality issues.

In short granting gays equal rights does not mean that the following become okay:

Adultery
Bestiality
Incest
or
Polygamy

What equal rights for homosexuals means is that they stop being an oppressed minority and now have rights equal to any other citizen of these United States. Why they are being denied their right to marriage is beyond my understanding and can only be viewed as an oppressive attempt by the majority to subjugate a minority and rob them of their rights.

Furthermore these lifestyles decrease the cohesion of the family unit and increase dependence upon the state,... of course we know that is all part of the plan.

We don't know that because gay marriage is still, in most states, entirely illegal.

And considering the fact that a great many many family units are plagued by dysfunctional families anyway means that heterosexuality does not automatically correlate to family cohesion.

Plus it could be said that heterosexual marriages that end in divorce do an immense amount of damage to family cohesion as well, so marriage itself is inherently putting the family unit at risk...

In short, you fail.


[edit on 27-5-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

I find it absurd for someone with the number 69 in their name to bring up issues of moral or sexual morality for obvious reasons.

What is absurd about the year I was born,... 1969? You assume too much and by extension show yourself as being too little.

[edit on 27-5-2010 by slane69]

For anyone that argues that the majority rules, you're wrong. This isn't an absolute democracy. A majority cannot oppress a minority.

Originally posted by Oneolddude
Where exactly do you suppose that all governments of the world come up with the present year date?

It is determined to be measured from the year of His birth.

Really? You think that's proof of his existence? It's a good thing that historians and scholars now place his supposed birth in the BC era (based on events that happened around the time of his supposed birth), right?

There is absolutely no proof that jesus was a single person, it's more likely that he's the product of many different individuals, much like the story of Robin Hood is.

[edit on 27-5-2010 by PieKeeper]

Still wondering why anyone would want to enter a contract with the government when the government has nothing to do with two people giving oaths to each other.

WHY?

[edit on 5/28/2010 by endisnighe]

Originally posted by endisnighe
Still wondering why anyone would want to enter a contract with the government when the government has nothing to do with two people giving oaths to each other.

WHY?

[edit on 5/28/2010 by endisnighe]

Because unfortunately, for some people that is the only way to gain access to a dying loved one in the hospital. For some it is the only way to share benefits such as insurance. For some people, it is a necessity in order to share their lives.

reply to post by Misoir


Yeah, if I were ever polled on the issue I wouldn't be able to answer, or if I did my answer would be misleading, since I don't believe in mixing a legal contract with marriage. I couldn't care less about gay or heterosexual marriage, just marriage with the legal trappings.

reply to post by K J Gunderson


The hospital and the insurance I can see. Problem is, why do they not bring it to the insurance companies. I know for a fact the homosexual community is a close knit community.

Why not band together and force the insurance companies to recognize such a union? These cooperatives have worked throughout history. Imagine if the community actually formed a cooperative and submitted a request or demand showing a list of all those that carry insurance with that carrier. That would be forceful. Whereas expecting the government to intercede on someone's behalf just gets all kinds of problems started. Kinda like forced insurance.

As for hospitals, one could sign a power of attorney over to a partner and the hospitals would have to allow visitation plus anything outlined in the power of attorney. It is called using the law.

We are a nation of laws. They need to be used properly and respected. Otherwise we get the trash we have now with over 600,000+ statutes that just infringe on our rights. The more power the government has, the more insecure we are. And more rights are trampled on.

As for the tax advantage of married couples, I have always felt that to be wrong. Social engineering is NOT the place of government. Period.

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

The hospital and the insurance I can see. Problem is, why do they not bring it to the insurance companies. I know for a fact the homosexual community is a close knit community.

Why not band together and force the insurance companies to recognize such a union? These cooperatives have worked throughout history. Imagine if the community actually formed a cooperative and submitted a request or demand showing a list of all those that carry insurance with that carrier. That would be forceful. Whereas expecting the government to intercede on someone's behalf just gets all kinds of problems started. Kinda like forced insurance.

Here is the reality. Many insurance companies actually do extend benefits to partners. The ones that do not, hide behind the law. No matter how many gay people show up, call, or write, they hide behind the LAW. They can do that because insurance companies have a special power to dominate and you know that. It is not like people get to shop around and they know that.

As for hospitals, one could sign a power of attorney over to a partner and the hospitals would have to allow visitation plus anything outlined in the power of attorney. It is called using the law.

Nope. It does not work that way. In most circumstances where family only are allowed to enter, power of attorney means jack all to the hospital. You can re-write that will from the lobby and that is about it.

We are a nation of laws. They need to be used properly and respected. Otherwise we get the trash we have now with over 600,000+ statutes that just infringe on our rights. The more power the government has, the more insecure we are. And more rights are trampled on.

And at the moment those laws allow discrimination against homosexuals. Because it is against the law for them to marry, many institutions deny things to people who are not MARRIED. Thus, using the current laws to discriminate.

As for the tax advantage of married couples, I have always felt that to be wrong. Social engineering is NOT the place of government. Period.

When they start basing tax code on what you feel, then you may have something there. Until then they seem to still be taxing the way they have completely in spite of how you feel about it.

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

Nope, just cause your past the age of sexual maturity, doesn't mean your an adult.

~Keeper

Why?

Because it is law? 30 years ago and sill in many other countries homosexuality is against the law, so why not how? Are you suggesting that society sets ethical standards?

I’m just trying to understand why we change some and see them as a norm now and others we are still wanting to protect.

Well yes, because it's the law. Sure I know plenty of teenagers of at 16 are capable of making their own decisions, but the vast majority are not.

And yes, society does decide what social norms are unfortunetly. I wish it wasn't so.

As we move forward however, peole have to realize that we are all just that, people.

Regardless of race, sexual preference, religion etc..

We should all be treated equally under the law. The fact is currently, we are not treated as such.

There should be no such thing as 2nd class citizens.

~Keeper