Scotland to legalize Gay Marriage

[Neutraligon]

Just like they were trying to extend it beyond its proper definition by making interracial marriage legal, right?

No, the Bible says nothing against interracial relations. That was just people being bigoted and racist and using religion as an excuse.

Just like right now you are using the bible as an excuse. The bible mentions nothing of homosexual marriage either.

[Menassa]

Just like they were trying to extend it beyond its proper definition by making interracial marriage legal, right?

No, the Bible says nothing against interracial relations. That was just people being bigoted and racist and using religion as an excuse.

The Bible doesn't say much about Homosexual marriages either.

[Phoenixfox]

Anyone and everyone has the right to get married, as long as it's to the correct gender. No one is deprived of their right to marry. They are trying to extend this right beyond its proper definition.

You don't have a monopoly on the definition of marriage.

Also, define "correct gender."

the opposite one

[San]

Just like they were trying to extend it beyond its proper definition by making interracial marriage legal, right?

No, the Bible says nothing against same-sex relations. That was just people being bigoted and homophobic and using religion as an excuse.

see the similarities?

[Gaelic Celtia]

Just like they were trying to extend it beyond its proper definition by making interracial marriage legal, right?

No, the Bible says nothing against interracial relations. That was just people being bigoted and racist and using religion as an excuse.

And you are just being bigoted and hateful using religion as an excuse.

[Wisconsin9]

Here's a helpful link explaining the Bible's position on interracial marriage.

[Neutraligon]

You don't have a monopoly on the definition of marriage.

Also, define "correct gender."

the opposite one

Since my religious institution is perfectly happy to marry homosexual couples, seems to me they are not only marrying the "correct gender" they are also getting the holy part of the marriage as well.

[Liriena]

Just like they were trying to extend it beyond its proper definition by making interracial marriage legal, right?

No, the Bible says nothing against interracial relations. That was just people being bigoted and racist and using religion as an excuse.

I find your lack of self-awareness rather baffling.

[Liriena]

You don't have a monopoly on the definition of marriage.

Also, define "correct gender."

the opposite one

Why only the opposite one?

[Krazakistan]

No, the Bible says nothing against interracial relations. That was just people being bigoted and racist and using religion as an excuse.

I find your lack of self-awareness rather baffling.

Damn it! You could have made a Star Wars reference! You were so close!

[Gaelic Celtia]

the opposite one

Since my religious institution is perfectly happy to marry homosexual couples, seems to me they are not only marrying the "correct gender" they are also getting the holy part of the marriage as well.

Then clearly your church is spurninggod and will be condemned to burn next to the gays in hell for your compassionate and progressive views.

[Neutraligon]

I find your lack of self-awareness rather baffling.

Damn it! You could have made a Star Wars reference! You were so close!

Oh good, I'm not the only one who thought that.

[Phoenixfox]

No. They can marry someone who is the correct gender. Everyone has the right to be married...to the right person.

Why do you restrict marriage to only one man and one woman?

Because that's what it is

Denominations that do otherwise are wrong...compromising to the sinful ways of the world instead of sticking to the Word

[Joshua Truksa]

Here is the problem with this. Marriage is a word deeply rooted in the beliefs of the Abrahamic religions. If you insist that marriage is merely a civil institution, then why don't we just take the word "marriage" out of the legal system and consider everyone as having a civil union? I'm sorry, but I consider someone shouting "Your deeply held faith is bigoted!" anything but tolerant. Here in the United States, we have "corporate personhood," as many other English common law countries do as well. A lot of people disagree with it but it actually makes sense if you look at it. Anyway, why shouldn't corporations be allowed to "marry?" They already effectively do, they just call it a "merger" instead of a "marriage." Also, one of the largest problems with this is that you can't patent a precedent. Whether you like it or not, same-sex "marriage" will be used as an argument of precedent for the legalization of both polygamy and possibly even lowering the age of consent and recognizing "civil unions," if you will, between owners and their pets. I am sure that someone will accuse that assertion as being a slippery slope, but I am also sure that in 1967 if I said that the legalization of interracial marriage would be used as an argument of precedent for the legalization of same-sex "marriage," I would be accused of employing a slippery slope argument, but that is exactly what has happened. People also say that this is acceptable because it was "acceptable in the Roman Empire and Ancient Greece." If this were true, it should be obvious that this is then regress, not progress. It is a regression to a pre-Christian morality. The truth of the idea that same-sex "marriage" was practised before Christianity or Judaism, however, I can find no substantiation for. The only same-sex "marriage" known to have taken place in ancient times was that of Nero and one of his eunuchs. Ancient Greece and Rome were also more tolerant of pederasty than today's society, and NAMbLA likes to point that out just as much as the LGBT lobby likes to point out that they were more tolerant of homosexuality. People who support same-sex "marriage" but then dogmatically say that pederasty or pædophilia cannot be validated because of the consent issue don't seem to realize that before the 20th Century the age of sexual consent in most English common law states and countries was only 10 years old, including the United States where the ages ranged from 7 in Delaware to 12 in a few others, with most setting it at 10. The age of sexual consent was only raised because of the influence of the feminist progressive movement in the late 19th Century, the same crowd that pushed for prohibition.

In the late 1920's and later the 1950's, there were "Homosexual Rights" groups, though they were obscure and most people never heard of them. You have the same situation today with zoophile rights groups. There is going to be a huge argument over who and what can consent to sexual activity in the future and the road to acceptance for other sexual minorities will have been cleared of many obstacles by the homosexual movement, whether the homosexuals like it or not, or want to acknowledge it or not. I suggest everyone read Peter Singer's essay, "Heavy Petting" (http://www.utilitarianism.net/singer/by/2001----.htm) and learn about the group E.F.A.- (http://equalityforall.net/), as well as watch the film "Coming Soon" by Sir Tijn Po (http://www.comingsoon.cz/).

I would also suggest people learn about Peter Tatchell, one of the most well known human rights and "gay rights" activists in the UK, and his and his respective organizations' ties to pro-pædophile movements- (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... z0zUDbYaj2).

The links between the homosexual movement and the pro-pædophile movement, and their levels of mutual support between prominent members of the respective groups, is sometimes simply astounding.

People on here will inevitably accuse me of being a "homophobe," but I am giving you facts and your problem shall be with them and not with me.

[Neutraligon]

Since my religious institution is perfectly happy to marry homosexual couples, seems to me they are not only marrying the "correct gender" they are also getting the holy part of the marriage as well.

Then clearly your church is spurninggod and will be condemned to burn next to the gays in hell for your compassionate and progressive views.

Well...my religious institution isn't a church, so that would happen anyway, except well, my religion doesn't believe in hell.

[Phoenixfox]

No, the Bible says nothing against interracial relations. That was just people being bigoted and racist and using religion as an excuse.

Which is exactly what you're doing right now.

No.

I've said many times in this thread I am not against gay people, gay relationships, open homosexuality, or any of that. I have friends that are guy. I simply against their involvement with the union of marriage. Other than that, I'm fine with them. Even though they are sinning, being gay is no worse a sin than lying which I do every day.

[Neutraligon]

Why do you restrict marriage to only one man and one woman?

Because that's what it is

Denominations that do otherwise are wrong...compromising to the sinful ways of the world instead of sticking to the Word

Since there are not just multiple denominations, but also multiple religions, some of whom have no issue with homosexuality, this comment make no sense.

[San]

I have friends that are guy.

"i'm not racist my friends are black!"

[Liriena]

Why do you restrict marriage to only one man and one woman?

Because that's what it is

According to whom? And why?

Denominations that do otherwise are wrong...compromising to the sinful ways of the world instead of sticking to the Word

So the whole world should revolve around your religious doctrine, and nobody else's? Anyone who disagrees can have no equality under the law? What about the non-Christian religions that marry same-sex couples? What about atheists?

[Neutraligon]

Which is exactly what you're doing right now.

No.

I've said many times in this thread I am not against gay people, gay relationships, open homosexuality, or any of that. I have friends that are guy. I simply against their involvement with the union of marriage. Other than that, I'm fine with them. Even though they are sinning, being gay is no worse a sin than lying which I do every day.

You are using your religion as an excuse not to recognize homosexual marriages.

[Utceforp]

Why do you restrict marriage to only one man and one woman?

Because that's what it is

Denominations that do otherwise are wrong...compromising to the sinful ways of the world instead of sticking to the Word

How much money do you have? Because if you're rich, (which pretty much everyone in First World countries are, relative to the rest of the world) you're not going to get into Heaven, or at the very least it'll be harder than a camel passing through the eye of a needle. Obeying the "Word" means sticking to everything in the Bible, all the ridiculous bits, not just obeying the parts that confirm your prejudices.

[Phoenixfox]

No, the Bible says nothing against same-sex relations. That was just people being bigoted and homophobic and using religion as an excuse.

see the similarities?

But it does. On multiple occasions. You know it. It calls man-on-man sexual acts an abomination. It is a sin in God's eyes, unlike interracial marriage. The two really aren't comparable in this line of reasoning.

[Wisconsin9]

Which is exactly what you're doing right now.

No.

I've said many times in this thread I am not against gay people, gay relationships, open homosexuality, or any of that. I have friends that are guy. I simply against their involvement with the union of marriage.

Sure. Just like racists didn't hate black folks, they just didn't think they should be able to vote. That's totally not hate.

[Gaelic Celtia]

snip

I gave up when I saw "links to pedophilia" somewhere in your post I gave up. Try again, please.

And one isolated case where a rights activist also promotes pedophilia=/=the sentiment of 99.999% of the rest of the movement. Are you truly trying to demonize that much?

[Gaelic Celtia]

see the similarities?

But it does. On multiple occasions. You know it. It calls man-on-man sexual acts an abomination. It is a sin in God's eyes, unlike interracial marriage. The two really aren't comparable in this line of reasoning.

Your book says many things and you choose to ignore many of those.