I Am a Straight, Married Christian Male in Support of Gay Marriage

reply to post by DRAZIW

I use objective knowledge in addition to subjectivity. When I say, the objective scientific biological knowledge of the human body indicates men and women are designed to bond together, but men and men are not,. it's purely objective, based on observable facts. There's no subjectivity there. When I say that GOD designed man this way, that could be argued to be my subjective inclusion in the discussion. Because I cannot "prove god" in the same way that I can "prove biological facts".

Exactly. This does nothing to back up your obnoxiousness. If anything it severely undermines your 'certainty'. If that is what it was 'designed for' then why are you being selective on that ideal? You are using a computer and the internet. You have likely flown in a plane. Maybe even taken anti- biotics or other medicine. Your statement shows no 'biological facts' about why it is 'bad' because you cannot do such a thing- it must be accepted that that is because of your religious belief.

The clichéd "lack of procreation" argument which I expect is similiarly void because of the reality of the situation- the percentile of humanity not breeding contains a huge array of people of which homosexuals make up only a small part. In fact, if any woman were to actually give birth after parthenogenesis they would of course be originally in this 'bad' group.

Originally posted by yes4141
reply to post by DRAZIW

 

I use objective knowledge in addition to subjectivity. When I say, the objective scientific biological knowledge of the human body indicates men and women are designed to bond together, but men and men are not,. it's purely objective, based on observable facts. There's no subjectivity there. When I say that GOD designed man this way, that could be argued to be my subjective inclusion in the discussion. Because I cannot "prove god" in the same way that I can "prove biological facts".

Exactly. This does nothing to back up your obnoxiousness. If anything it severely undermines your 'certainty'. If that is what it was 'designed for' then why are you being selective on that ideal? You are using a computer and the internet. You have likely flown in a plane. Maybe even taken anti- biotics or other medicine. Your statement shows no 'biological facts' about why it is 'bad' because you cannot do such a thing- it must be accepted that that is because of your religious belief.

Its because he likes to "Pick and choose"

Originally posted by yes4141

Exactly. This does nothing to back up your obnoxiousness. If anything it severely undermines your 'certainty'. If that is what it was 'designed for' then why are you being selective on that ideal? You are using a computer and the internet. You have likely flown in a plane. Maybe even taken anti- biotics or other medicine. Your statement shows no 'biological facts' about why it is 'bad' because you cannot do such a thing- it must be accepted that that is because of your religious belief.

Golly, you want to believe so badly that it's ok to violate the design. Yes, god didn't give us wings, but we got around that and made our own metal wings to fly. HE also limited how far our voice could carry in the wind, but we got around that and now shout across the world via the internet. Sure, we're breaking all his design rules. So, why not break the copulation rule too? Go ahead and break the rule, just don't call it a marriage. That's all I say. We don't call the airplane a "bird", because its a new thing. We don't call the internet a "voice", because it's a new thing. So, give the new gay bonding a new name, and stop all the confusion already.

It's not a marriage, it's a "gay union".

It ain't right in the eyes of the Lord, it ain't intended in the biological design, but, hey, it can be done, so why not do it !

Animals next. We can bond with them too. Some people are very fond of animals. They are probably born that way.

Originally posted by spw184


Its because he likes to "Pick and choose"

And you accept all things?

Originally posted by DRAZIW

Originally posted by spw184


Its because he likes to "Pick and choose"

And you accept all things?

no, but unlike you, most the things I accept and reject are opposites.

Originally posted by DRAZIW

Originally posted by yes4141

Exactly. This does nothing to back up your obnoxiousness. If anything it severely undermines your 'certainty'. If that is what it was 'designed for' then why are you being selective on that ideal? You are using a computer and the internet. You have likely flown in a plane. Maybe even taken anti- biotics or other medicine. Your statement shows no 'biological facts' about why it is 'bad' because you cannot do such a thing- it must be accepted that that is because of your religious belief.

Golly, you want to believe so badly that it's ok to violate the design. Yes, god didn't give us wings, but we got around that and made our own metal wings to fly. HE also limited how far our voice could carry in the wind, but we got around that and now shout across the world via the internet. Sure, we're breaking all his design rules. So, why not break the copulation rule too? Go ahead and break the rule, just don't call it a marriage. That's all I say. We don't call the airplane a "bird", because its a new thing. We don't call the internet a "voice", because it's a new thing. So, give the new gay bonding a new name, and stop all the confusion already.

It's not a marriage, it's a "gay union".

It ain't right in the eyes of the Lord, it ain't intended in the biological design, but, hey, it can be done, so why not do it !

Animals next. We can bond with them too. Some people are very fond of animals. They are probably born that way.

Well my grandpa who was a WWII bomber always called planes "Birds", and goverment documents often discribe the internet as a voice.

Oh and also, These are PEOPLE not STRUCTURES, the same rules to not apply. Oh and also, Y u no respond to my last post? You know, the one that showed how 130% un-reliable you are?

Originally posted by spw184

Originally posted by DRAZIW

Originally posted by spw184


Its because he likes to "Pick and choose"

And you accept all things?

no, but unlike you, most the things I accept and reject are opposites.

Ok. I get it. You reject women, because they are opposite. You accept men, because they are the same as you.

I happen to like my opposites. It completes me. I think accepting the differences is a good thing.

Originally posted by DRAZIW

Originally posted by spw184

Originally posted by DRAZIW

Originally posted by spw184


Its because he likes to "Pick and choose"

And you accept all things?

no, but unlike you, most the things I accept and reject are opposites.

Ok. I get it. You reject women, because they are opposite. You accept men, because they are the same as you.

I happen to like my opposites. It completes me. I think accepting the differences is a good thing.

I guess your right, I reject woman sexualy because I like men sexually. Deal with it.
And really, if you like opposites, and thing differences are a good thing, than we wouldnt be having this conversation.

Originally posted by spw184


I guess your right, I reject woman sexualy because I like men sexually. Deal with it.

I don't have to deal with it. I am that I am.

And really, if you like opposites, and thing differences are a good thing, than we wouldnt be having this conversation.

That's the thing. Gay men like to think that they are "different". When in fact, they hate anything that is not the "same." And then they blame everyone around them for discriminating against them for being "different". They are one confused bunch.

Originally posted by DRAZIW

Originally posted by spw184

And really, if you like opposites, and thing differences are a good thing, than we wouldnt be having this conversation.

That's the thing. Gay men like to think that they are "different". When in fact, they hate anything that is not the "same." And then they blame everyone around them for discriminating against them for being "different". They are one confused bunch.

Right now I AM confused, because that made no sense, sorry. rephrase pleaseZ?

edit on 13-10-2011 by spw184 because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-10-2011 by spw184 because: (no reason given)

reply to post by spw184


o.o I dont know what happened there, so look deep

reply to post by DRAZIW

Animals next. We can bond with them too. Some people are very fond of animals. They are probably born that way.

This really does show a significant lack of individual thought. It is an entirely invalid comparison. You seem to just consider beastiality 'bad' without reasoning. I would say it was a bad thing to do because the animal cannot give informed consent like a person could. Not simply because society says it's taboo. Like you keep saying, we have free will, therefore the ability to choose who we have sex with- this totally contradicts your comparison.

That's the thing. Gay men like to think that they are "different"....
They are one confused bunch.

Wonderful that you believe yourself to be a macro psychologist who can assess significant amounts of people in one swift statement. You're so good at it that you can even do it whilst grossly misinformed!

Ok. I get it. You reject women, because they are opposite. You accept men, because they are the same as you. I happen to like my opposites. It completes me. I think accepting the differences is a good thing.

This sums you up. You try to claim reasoning and reality is fueling your beliefs, but vulgar, cheap, ad hominem attacks like this unmask you.

Originally posted by yes4141

This really does show a significant lack of individual thought. It is an entirely invalid comparison. You seem to just consider beastiality 'bad' without reasoning.

I don't know if it's bad or good. It's bad for me. But, who am I to judge whether its bad for someone else?

They have a need, they fill their own need. I'm not trying to stand in their way. I'm just saying that it's not right to consider those other forms of "love" equal to the man+woman bond. It's not right to confuse the language, and confuse the kids, and mislead the innocent, and tell them that it's all the same thing.

It's not the same thing. Each type of "love" is different, and ought to be labeled differently.

Don't call a "spade" a "shoe".

In communist countries, they banned all names that distinguished between man and woman. You couldn't say Mr, or Miss, or Sir, or Master, etc..it was all "comrade". Well, comrade my foot, that's a man, and that's a woman. God made them male and female, not comrade and comrade. But, then again, communists didn't believe in God. So, it figures.

I would say it was a bad thing to do because the animal cannot give informed consent like a person could.

How do you know the animal cannot give informed consent? Did the animal run away. Did it bark or complain? Many animals have lots of intelligence. You call a dog, it comes. You tell it to fetch, it goes fetch. If the animal comes back for more love, then isn't that consent enough? What do you want from the animal? Paw prints?

Not simply because society says it's taboo. Like you keep saying, we have free will, therefore the ability to choose who we have sex with- this totally contradicts your comparison.

Exactly, we have free will. You can choose. But, you can't call it all the same thing.

Wonderful that you believe yourself to be a macro psychologist who can assess significant amounts of people in one swift statement.

Don't need to assess the people, only the "action". The people are different, they are individuals.

BUT, THEIR ACTION IS ALL THE SAME.

Not hard to figure that out.

You're so good

Yes, I am. Aren't I ?

at it that you can even do it whilst grossly misinformed!

The only misinformed, are those who don't understand what their private jewels are really there for.

They think it's for "recreation."

This sums you up. You try to claim reasoning and reality is fueling your beliefs, but vulgar, cheap, ad hominem attacks like this unmask you.

I have no mask. This is me. Pure and simple. There's no complexity. My beliefs are the right beliefs. I stand by everything I say. I don't expect everyone to understand my reasoning. But, why do you interpret any of this as "vulgar" ? That's a bit unexpected. After all, just mentioning homosexuality long ago was considered "vulgar". But, today, it's no different than saying "cheese". Times change, the vulgar becomes the norm, and we move on. But, keep different actions separate, label them separately, so we understand what we are talking about when we say "married".

To marry is to be blessed by God, and to become one flesh. Only man+woman can do that !