Gay Marriage v.1000

[Jacky]

Give it credit for being one of the most widely-sold books worldwide in almost 1000 languages for nearly 1700 years.
Can you do that?

it is a holy relic.

I believe there is evidence it was all real. I'm not sure. ( pls no flame I'm trying to keep things civil )

[Ad Bot]

[Alyx Vance]

it is a holy relic.

I believe there is evidence it was all real. I'm not sure. ( pls no flame I'm trying to keep things civil )

It may be real but I see no true proof that its no more than a book.

[Treynolds416]

it is a holy relic.

I believe there is evidence it was all real. I'm not sure. ( pls no flame I'm trying to keep things civil )

One issue at a time guys, seriously

[wound]

Please do elaborate.

Why is that?

okay my bad, it's should be legal for the rights, but i just don't think it's right IMO.

it's just not right.
there are two diffrent genders for many reasons, one of the most important reasons is to have love for babies and what not.

[HellHound]

okay my bad, it's should be legal for the rights, but i just don't think it's right IMO.

it's just not right.
there are two diffrent genders for many reasons, one of the most important reasons is to have love for babies and what not.

Well, you don't need babies everywhere, and not all love is simply for the purpouse of reproduction, saying homoloveuality is wrong because it doesn't make babies is kind of dumb and stupid.

[Mega-Bear]

okay my bad, it's should be legal for the rights, but i just don't think it's right IMO.

it's just not right.
there are two diffrent genders for many reasons, one of the most important reasons is to have love for babies and what not.

Marriage doesn't exist solely for babies.

[Kalphiter]

it's just not right.
there are two diffrent genders for many reasons, one of the most important reasons is to have love for babies and what not.

Alright, I don't see what you're getting at...

[Alyx Vance]

Well, you don't need babies everywhere, and not all love is simply for the purpouse of reproduction, saying homoloveuality is wrong because it doesn't make babies is kind of dumb and stupid.

Or maybe someone likes having a meat rod up the ass?
Maybe someone gets pleasure off of it, love isn't just for babies you know. Well not no more.

[Jacky]

one of the most important reasons is to have love for babies and what not.

China's population should become gay. India's too.

[HellHound]

China's population should become gay. India's too.

World Leader 2012.

[Thorax]

Thorax, anything religious will cause a war 3/4 the time.

I've been here long enough to know that. My post never said any religion is best, nor did it say any religion was wrong. I simply said that there is no counterpoint to the legalization of gay marriage other than religion. Then I made the point that religion doesn't have the power to make laws. I don't see any fire-starters in that.

it loving says outright that homoloveuality is an abomination. how is that open to interpretation

It wasn't written in English. It has been translated from the original Hebrew mstar fishcripts on multiple occasions, giving rise to different interpretations based on context and the language during the time of the translation.

I'm assuming your referencing to Rom 1:26-28. I mentioned in my post that those passages were difficult to translate as the letter Paul wrote is only part of a conversation, meaning that a lot of the original context is missing from the passage. This leaves many of the assumptive words, such as natural, open to interpretation because we do not know explicitly what "natural" is referring to.

If you are referencing to the verse you quoted (Lev 18:22), I mentioned that it is out of context and the literal translation from the hebrew is ambiguous.


I'm happy to answer further questions, but I'd appreciate if I didn't have to keep derailing the thread with the breakdown of verses.

[Alyx Vance]

I've been here long enough to know that. My post never said any religion is best, nor did it say any religion was wrong. I simply said that there is no counterpoint to the legalization of gay marriage other than religion. Then I made the point that religion doesn't have the power to make laws. I don't see any fire-starters in that.

It wasn't written in English. It has been translated from the original Hebrew mstar fishcripts on multiple occasions, giving rise to different interpretations based on context and the language during the time of the translation.

I'm assuming your referencing to Rom 1:26-28. I mentioned in my post that those passages were difficult to translate as the letter Paul wrote is only part of a conversation, meaning that a lot of the original context is missing from the passage. This leaves many of the assumptive words, such as natural, open to interpretation because we do not know explicitly what "natural" is referring to.

If you are referencing to the verse you quoted (Lev 18:22), I mentioned that it is out of context and the literal translation from the hebrew is ambiguous.


I'm happy to answer further questions, but I'd appreciate if I didn't have to keep derailing the thread with the breakdown of verses.

And what support do you have against it? Because you don't like it?
Geez its like 1960's all over again except with gays and not blacks.

[Frontrox]

I think marriage is dumb

It's just a public declaration of your love for each other. I could just give my boyfriend a ring and live with him the rest of my life, it's pretty much the same thing.

[Mega-Bear]

And what support do you have against it? Because you don't like it?
Geez its like 1960's all over again except with gays and not blacks.

[Alyx Vance]

I think marriage is dumb

It's just a public declaration of your love for each other. I could just give my boyfriend a ring and live with him the rest of my life, it's pretty much the same thing.

Now I think of it I agree.
In marriage all you do is say you'll be together forever and all that, just so you can get pissed and pa 2000$ to get divorced.
Just a money thing really.