DescentBB

Ferno wrote:without referring to the bible, what is this "fundamental difference" you speak of? Any historical precedences? I'll tell you right now Thorne, you'd better bring an absolutely airtight argument to this...

Absolutely airtight? Are you sure I don't just need to take into consideration all of the contrary arguments which have been heard/read by my opponents? Are you really so capable of finding a "leak" that nobody has already told you about?

I'm going to throw the history part of that right back at you, Ferno. Name me one homosexual "family" that has gone on to be a boon to the community. Name me one homosexual "family" that isn't just the refuse of a sick society, and which just doesn't stand out much from the rest of the assholes who ★■◆● about their spouses, manipulate their spouses, cheat on their spouses, hate their children, who also hate them, absolve themselves of parental responsibility, absolve themselves of marital responsibility, ...? Honestly, as I've alluded to above, the fundamental difference is in the process of being lost on a society that has long-since lost the purity and the significance of the "sacred institution" of marriage between one man and one woman for life, and the well-mannered, upstanding children who naturally and gloriously come from such a union to be a benefit to their family, their community, the next generation, and to continue the family line. If I ever saw a true equality of outcome I would start to wonder, but it just isn't there. If you can't see it because your standards aren't much better, I fail to see why that makes me the ★■◆●...

And that fact there is always one party that takes the part of the "male" and one that takes the part of the "female" is probably a lost indicator on you boneheads. Check your brain at the door...

Male and female. That's the way we were created. A male for a female, and a female for a male. It's so straight-forward you all ★■◆●ing miss it.

EDIT: I just hope the political-correctness of this insanity doesn't make it's way into the field of electronics. Extension cords and a host of other things could become wonderfully confusing.

I think Ferno doesn't know all the definitions of marriage. Let me put it this way.
If you take 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom, then marry them together, you get water.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I'm going to throw the history part of that right back at you, Ferno. Name me one homosexual "family" that has gone on to be a boon to the community. Name me one homosexual "family" that isn't just the refuse of a sick society, and which just doesn't stand out much from the rest of the assholes who ★■◆● about their spouses, manipulate their spouses, cheat on their spouses, hate their children, who also hate them, absolve themselves of parental responsibility, absolve themselves of marital responsibility, ...? Honestly, as I've alluded to above, the fundamental difference is in the process of being lost on a society that has long-since lost the purity and the significance of the "sacred institution" of marriage between one man and one woman for life, and the well-mannered, upstanding children who naturally and gloriously come from such a union to be a benefit to their family, their community, the next generation, and to continue the family line. If I ever saw a true equality of outcome I would start to wonder, but it just isn't there. If you can't see it because your standards aren't much better, I fail to see why that makes me the ★■◆●...

non-sequitor, emotionally charged, and self-contradictory argument.

Plenty of heterosexual families fit this description also. And this 'sick' society you speak of include Canada, Spain, The Netherlands, Belgium and Sweden. And as for the sanctity and purity of marriage? you might want to talk to the heterosexual couples that piss all over the 'purity and sanctity' of marriage first.

As for one homosexual families, there aren't any that I can find. but there are gay individuals that are critical to our history. A google search would have turned up Leonardo Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Alexander the Great, Liberace, Chopin and Tchaikovsky.

flip wrote:I think Ferno doesn't know all the definitions of marriage. Let me put it this way.
If you take 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom, then marry them together, you get water.

first, you use "biblical definition" now you try biological definition. Something i've already addressed. And seeing as you want to do it that way, i'll bounce it right back at you. If you take two hydrogen atoms and one helium atom, then marry them together, you get sunlight.


please, you guys. if this is the best you can do, i'm just going to end up getting bored.

Ok, now were getting somewhere! Taking my example of water and yours of a star, what do you get when 2 homosexuals marry? Nothing! You know why, because it's impossible for them to do so. That is the biblical definition of marriage. To combine

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Name me one homosexual "family" that has gone on to be a boon to the community. Name me one homosexual "family" that isn't just the refuse of a sick society...

You are one horrible, disgusting, hate-filled human being. Please watch this video and try cultivate something that resembles a soul.

Ferno wrote:non-sequitor, emotionally charged, and self-contradictory argument.

None of these are arguments...

Ferno wrote:Plenty of heterosexual families fit this description also.

That's actually what I was saying. Read it.

Ferno wrote:And this 'sick' society you speak of include Canada, Spain, The Netherlands, Belgium and Sweden. And as for the sanctity and purity of marriage? you might want to talk to the heterosexual couples that piss all over the 'purity and sanctity' of marriage first.

This is not an argument.

Ferno wrote:As for one homosexual families, there aren't any that I can find. but there are gay individuals that are critical to our history. A google search would have turned up Leonardo Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Alexander the Great, Liberace, Chopin and Tchaikovsky.

"Critical to our history"? I think it's obvious I wasn't talking about great intellectual or artistic achievement. Life is chocked full of examples of people who are total ****-ups, despite a high level of achievement. I'm talking about contribution to the fabric of community and society. No homosexual families that are a boon to society... You're a fool if that doesn't mean anything to you. To me it's predictable because I have some idea where homosexuality actually hails from.

vision wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Name me one homosexual "family" that has gone on to be a boon to the community. Name me one homosexual "family" that isn't just the refuse of a sick society...

You are one horrible, disgusting, hate-filled human being. Please watch this video and try cultivate something that resembles a soul.

"Who's scruffy-lookin'?!" I'm nothing resembling hate-filled. I'm just unashamedly opinionated. Gonna have to have a better reason to click your video...

flip wrote:I think Ferno doesn't know all the definitions of marriage. Let me put it this way.
If you take 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom, then marry them together, you get water.

And, if you put 2 hydrogen's together, you get deuterium.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:And that fact there is always one party that takes the part of the "male" and one that takes the part of the "female" is probably a lost indicator on you boneheads. Check your brain at the door...

Male and female. That's the way we were created. A male for a female, and a female for a male. It's so straight-forward you all **** miss it.

EDIT: I just hope the political-correctness of this insanity doesn't make it's way into the field of electronics. Extension cords and a host of other things could become wonderfully confusing.

Such a small, narrow, limited mind ST. You're still thinking in black and white, right or left. Genetics isn't not black and white, but highly variable, highly malleable. That's why things change over time. Code is never stagnant nor rigid in computers over time and neither is it with life. That's by design for survival.

Don't be so quick to dismiss epigenetics either. A whole lot of changes happen to our genome due to exposure to different chemicals in the womb. Not only are we coded, we're baked in the oven as well.

Yep! Although neither yours nor Ferno's are biological examples , it does go
to show that the whole world was built on the concept of marriage .

flip wrote:Ok, now were getting somewhere! Taking my example of water and yours of a star, what do you get when 2 homosexuals marry? Nothing! You know why, because it's impossible for them to do so. That is the biblical definition of marriage. To combine

well when water and a star combine, you get steam. So you still get something out of it!

Sergeant Thorne wrote:"Who's scruffy-lookin'?!" I'm nothing resembling hate-filled. I'm just unashamedly opinionated. Gonna have to have a better reason to click your video...

Yes, please remain ignorant. That's probably what you are best at.

flip wrote:Yep! Although neither yours nor Ferno's are biological examples , it does go
to show that the whole world was built on the concept of marriage .

artificial insemination is biological. And the whole world was built on the concepts of marriage? There were many, many families out there that weren't married, and the world was still built. Genghis Khan wasn't married to anyone and yet, we all draw a little of our bloodlines from him.


thorne, I refute your arguments with reason, you fire off cheap shots and personal attacks. Da Vinci and the others I named most likely had families.

This is not an argument.

Yes it is. I have to admire the glass house you built, though. You might not want to throw stones though...

I'm talking about contribution to the fabric of community and society

Art and Engineering isn't? Try again.

Vision, what you're doing isn't helping. Don't take cheap shots at them.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I'm going to throw the history part of that right back at you, Ferno. Name me one homosexual "family" that has gone on to be a boon to the community.

That's easy. For instance, many adopt children from foster homes.

In any case, being a boon to the community has never been a legal requirement for the marriage of straight couples. Even when the marriage of a straight couple is demonstrably harmful, we still don't dissolve their marriage--it's still their right to choose to do that. So it makes no sense to start applying this requirement to gay couples.

flip wrote:Ok, now were getting somewhere! Taking my example of water and yours of a star, what do you get when 2 homosexuals marry? Nothing! You know why, because it's impossible for them to do so. That is the biblical definition of marriage. To combine

um,'combine' and 'reproduce' are two different concepts......just saying.

once again, y'all stun me........I start a thread towards what folks define as 'left wing' or 'right wing' and 4 pages later we have a full blown exposition of ignorance around homosexuality. Wow.

Uh, you have to combine to reproduce. Whether it be in the normal fashion or in a friggin test tube.

Edit: I could agree that homosexuality is in the human genome. Maybe it's a way to completely stop their bloodline and eradicate itself. While their here though I completely agree with equal rights for them.

flip wrote:Uh, you have to combine to reproduce.

right, but one does not imply the other. Basic Logic, flip.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:To me it's predictable because I have some idea where homosexuality actually hails from.

No, you don't have a single clue, which you continue to demonstrate on a daily basis.

Honestly Thorne, you are pretty much the living embodiment of what's wrong with so much of Christianity in the United States today. Maybe you should try getting off your own holier-than-thou high horse and worry about removing the beam from your own eye before concerning yourself over the mote in another's.

Taken out off context, TG. I'm not trying to fix anyone's life. You are trying to tell me that I need to be perfect before I engage in a conversation that any of you are prepared to have, just because I disagree with you. Get it straight, just once, any of you, for ★■◆●'s sake. Have I told anyone, in essence, "here, let me get the splinter out of your eye?" No I haven't.

flip wrote:Edit: I could agree that homosexuality is in the human genome. Maybe it's a way to completely stop their bloodline and eradicate itself.

It's not a "bloodline," it doesn't work like that. Also, evolutionary systems don't deliberately try to destroy themselves. Homosexuality is not only part of all human beings, it's part of thousands of other species and it is nothing to be looked down on, regardless of what your pervert of a skygod says.

Lol! These discussions wouldn't get so stupid in real life.

My point was simple. Homosexuals cannot marry and reproduce. Fact. You guys are a bunch of weirdos that cannot even concede simple facts.

Flip, people are understandably confused because you're using terms inconsistently with how we already have been using them (marriage) or esoterically (combination).

Procreation is another criterion that if we want to use to restrict which gay couples can get married, then we first have to apply it to straight couples. Besides, if a gay couple adopts, who would say it would have been better if they had conceived a child instead?

I did my best to quell confusion by repeatedly defining my point. It was a clinical observation. Homosexuals could never qualify to marry biblically and why.

You know, I honestly think I have presented too simplistic a view of marriage.Probably because my perspective lately has been on this aspect of marriage, but to limit it just to that does it injustice. Maybe it's better to say that homosexuals cannot accomplish the fullness of marriage, procreation being a very important part of it.

I will say this too, this is why people who believe in God and those who don't will never be able to agree on anything concerning morality, because I think marriage is sanctioned by God and there is a joining spiritually between the 2. No way could I believe God would honor that kind of union as it goes against His whole purpose for marriage in the first place. That is why no believer will ever see it as anything but a 3 legged dog.

....and there you go conflating religion and morality again. Your specific religion (and there are many) hold no authority on the morality of anyone that doesn't believe exactly what you believe. This includes people within your religion.

Even if you have some sort of spiritual belief about the purpose of marriage, just what does that have to do with the civil version? There are plenty of atheists who get married, and there are plenty of married couples who plan on never having children. Should their marriages be prohibited as well? Hell, I don't understand why it's an issue for my own faith, as our sacrament of Matrimony has absolutely nothing to do with the license that the justice of the peace signs. There isn't any religious issue here at all, other than the smokescreen certain parties are hiding behind.

callmeslick wrote:

flip wrote:Uh, you have to combine to reproduce.

right, but one does not imply the other. Basic Logic, flip.

which is something i was alluding to for the past few posts. *shrug*

flip wrote:My point was simple. Homosexuals cannot marry and reproduce. Fact. You guys are a bunch of weirdos that cannot even concede simple facts.

no. you think homosexuals can't reproduce. But have been shown repeatedly by myself and others that that assertion just isn't true with epigenetics backing that up.

Homosexuals could never qualify to marry biblically and why.

And I have DIRECTLY refuted this more than once using more than one example. This is turning into a circular argument, which will be refuted again, again, again and again.

flip wrote:Lol! These discussions wouldn't get so stupid in real life.

well, you have that right. because we would have left you in the room a long time ago.

That's why I agree with civil unions TG, freedom of choice to live how you see things without infringement.

Sure Ferno, you would probably leave the room, but you'd be nice about it .

flip wrote:I could agree that homosexuality is in the human genome. Maybe it's a way to completely stop their bloodline and eradicate itself.

Having children is not the only way to make sure your genes carry on. The other way is to look after your relatives' children. You also share a large amount of genes with them. Google "inclusive fitness" to get started...

cmon, Foil, you have to give them credit for dragging a thread that never meant to deal with the subject of homosexual rights/behavior off topic so far as they have........

I departed from the conversation, but I I should apologize for hijacking your thread slick. It derailed around the time I called someone a name; might as well give up on the fact that it will be about the original topic from here on out.

CobSnobbler wrote:I should apologize for hijacking your thread slick.

You "should," but...?

no offense taken, Cob......I find it fascinating, and amusing, to see the warpage of an original idea into some completely different idea over the course of a few pages. Sort of reminds me of that game we played as a child, where one kid relays to the next kid a sentence, until it becomes completely different by the time you get to the 10th child.....

No, the original “idea” was not “warped” the conversation met a segue just like they do in person…I find it fascinating that people expect casual chat on some game board to behave like a strict business meeting.

Now get back on topic…for god sake!

Spidey wrote:I find it fascinating that people expect casual chat on some game board to behave like a strict business meeting.

It's not a problem for a thread to seque / tangent / "warp". I may split it if two areas of discussion are being simultaneously kept alive, but as long as it's not devolving into chaos or mud-slinging, have at it.

----

As for the last topic, I'm actually seeing a lot of agreement behind the semantic differences:

• religious/spiritual marriage and civil/legal marriage should be treated separately:
• civil/legal marriage should be open to all couples
• religious organizations should be able to handle spiritual/religious marriage at their discretion

Seems most folk in here agree with the above, despite differing definitions / ethics on the matter. Am I wrong?

Foil wrote:

Spidey wrote:I find it fascinating that people expect casual chat on some game board to behave like a strict business meeting.

It's not a problem for a thread to seque / tangent / "warp". I may split it if two areas of discussion are being simultaneously kept alive, but as long as it's not devolving into chaos or mud-slinging, have at it.

----

As for the last topic, I'm actually seeing a lot of agreement behind the semantic differences:

• religious/spiritual marriage and civil/legal marriage should be treated separately:
• civil/legal marriage should be open to all couples
• religious organizations should be able to handle spiritual/religious marriage at their discretion

Seems most folk in here agree with the above, despite differing definitions / ethics on the matter. Am I wrong?

That about sums it up for me.

Yes.