Scotland to legalize Gay Marriage

[The Black Forrest]

I try not to. I do everything in my power as a sinful human to live by it. I fail on many levels, as we all do. It doesn't mean I should sit by idly while the world goes down a path towards sin and destruction.

And tell me, have any of the countries that have legalized gay marriage fallen into ruin? Become victims of plagues and the wrath of natural disasters? Have any of them see a sharp decline in..anything?

Indeed. They also never seem to notice how many hurricanes and tornadoes hit the Bible belt.

[Phoenixfox]

I'm not effing Jewish or whatever you're referring to. If those things are actually in the Bible and not you pulling shit out of your ass like usual.....then I suppose I will try to abide by it.

Like Usual?

Seems you haven't read much of your Bible my friend:

Leviticus 11:9-12

These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.

And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.

Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Deuteronomy 22:11
Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together.

That's the Bible, cut and paste.

Ah, but you're removing them from their context. I don't know for sure, but it could have been instructions directed towards a specific group of people, not the world at-large.

[Utceforp]

One of them is the holy word of God, that's why.

"My religion is true-er than your religion"

Please tell me why your version of Christianity, that one single version rather than the over forty thousand different versions, is true?

Is that hyperbole? Because I wouldn't be surprised.

[Wisconsin9]

Cheering is too mainstream for me.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna hop in my MINI Cooper, don my lenseless glasses and ride to Starbucks at the local bookstore, where I'll go on my Macbook and write on my blog about vegan cheesecake recipes. All while wearing an ironic T-shirt.

Ooh, send me those recipes, will ya? My family's been looking for a good one.

[Menassa]

Like Usual?

Seems you haven't read much of your Bible my friend:

Leviticus 11:9-12

These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.

And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.

Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Deuteronomy 22:11
Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together.

That's the Bible, cut and paste.

Ah, but you're removing them from their context. I don't know for sure, but it could have been instructions directed towards a specific group of people, not the world at-large.

And why can't the same said about the verses about homosexuality in Leviticus and Deuteronomy?

[Krazakistan]

"I must try to save them from sin"

You've just admitted that you will try and shove your religion down other people's throats.

I try to shove salvation down their throat

Like parents try to force their kids to eat veggies even if they don't like it. It's good for them.

I never knew that deliberately oppressing a group of people is good for them.

[The Black Forrest]

Don't you FUCKING DARE TO PRESUME WHAT I FEEL AND TELL ME WHAT I DO AND DON'T KNOW! AND HOW FUCKING DARE YOU SAY THAT TWO PEOPLE IN LOVE ARE BEING SELFISH WHEN YOU'RE WILLING TO THROW SEVEN HUNDRED MILLION PEOPLE UNDER THE FUCKING BUS TO SAVE YOUR OWN SOUL!

It is a typical response of a sinner to become angry when confronted with his sins. It is selfish in the sense that they are putting their own sexual desires in front of the desires of their creator. And I have not thrown anyone under the bus. I truly want us to find a compromise that allows gays to be happy and live their life while still maintaining the purity of marriage.

The purity of marriage? Do you even know what the divorce rate is?

[Othelos]

"I must try to save them from sin"

You've just admitted that you will try and shove your religion down other people's throats.

I try to shove salvation down their throat

Like parents try to force their kids to eat veggies even if they don't like it. It's good for them.

It's naive to think that people will accept 'salvation' shoved down their throats.

Are you advocating forced conversion?

[Utceforp]

Like Usual?

Seems you haven't read much of your Bible my friend:

Leviticus 11:9-12

These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.

And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.

Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Deuteronomy 22:11
Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together.

That's the Bible, cut and paste.

Ah, but you're removing them from their context. I don't know for sure, but it could have been instructions directed towards a specific group of people, not the world at-large.

You see this? This is you grasping at straws and refusing to accept defeat.

[Neutraligon]

Like Usual?

Seems you haven't read much of your Bible my friend:

Leviticus 11:9-12

These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.

And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.

Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Deuteronomy 22:11
Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together.

That's the Bible, cut and paste.

Ah, but you're removing them from their context. I don't know for sure, but it could have been instructions directed towards a specific group of people, not the world at-large.

Technically the entire old testament is directed towards Jews only, including that lovely passage about a man not lying with a man like he does with a woman.

[Gaelic Celtia]

Like Usual?

Seems you haven't read much of your Bible my friend:

Leviticus 11:9-12

These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.

And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.

Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Deuteronomy 22:11
Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together.

That's the Bible, cut and paste.

Ah, but you're removing them from their context. I don't know for sure, but it could have been instructions directed towards a specific group of people, not the world at-large.

the lines mistranslated as referring to homosexuality originally meant temple prostitutes, not gays.

plus, that's still only gay sex, not relations or marriage.

you're grasping at straws

[Krazakistan]

"My religion is true-er than your religion"

Please tell me why your version of Christianity, that one single version rather than the over forty thousand different versions, is true?

Is that hyperbole? Because I wouldn't be surprised.

Yes it is, if you're wondering.

[Liriena]

Here is the problem with this. Marriage is a word deeply rooted in the beliefs of the Abrahamic religions.

No, it's not. Marriage is a universal concept over which no religion has any copyright.

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?

Because there's no pressing need to do that. Asides from discrimination against some minorities, a problem that society and the state are already addressing, the current system for regulating relationships and families works just fine with civil marriage.

This idea of removing marriage from secular discourse seems rather childish, a scorched earth policy of sorts in the face of religious organizations losing their grip on secular institutions.

I'm sorry, but I consider someone shouting "Your deeply held faith is bigoted!" anything but tolerant.

Then you don't understand what the word "tolerance" means. Tolerance is not exemption from criticism.

Here in the United States, we have "corporate personhood," as many other English common law countries do as well.

As do many Continental law countries, actually. What does this have to do with same-sex marriage?

A lot of people disagree with it but it actually makes sense if you look at it.

Again, what does this have to do with same-sex marriage?

Anyway, why shouldn't corporations be allowed to "marry?"

Not the topic of this debate, Mr. Red Herring.

They already effectively do, they just call it a "merger" instead of a "marriage."

Oh, now I see where this is going.

Also, one of the largest problems with this is that you can't patent a precedent.

Whatever do you mean, I wonder?

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.

Yeah, I saw this bullshit coming.

I'm sorry, Mr. Slippery Slope, but whether the same arguments used to defend same-sex marriage (by the way, I find your use of quotations over the word marriage insulting, but at least it shows your true colours) can be used in favour of polyamory, bestiality (unlikely, since pets are not people, genius) or child molestation (really stretching it there, buddy) does not in any way invalidate the arguments. It's like claiming that the arguments in favour to giving the vote to women could be used in favour of giving the vote to pets. It's irrelevant. It doesn't actually affect the legitimacy of those arguments. I'm sorry, but that was one piece of shit of a fallacy you committed.

I am sure that someone will accuse that assertion as being a slippery slope,

And rightfully so.

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.

And yet the veracity and validity of those arguments was not affected in the least. But please, do keep appealing to that fallacy. It looks good on you.

People also say that this is acceptable because it was "acceptable in the Roman Empire and Ancient Greece."

I don't. What Rome and Greece accepted is irrelevant to the discussion on current issues, much in the same way that what the Holy Roman Empire accepted is irrelevant. However, I will admit that I do appeal to the cases of Rome and Greece (along with China and Japan) when, for example, a certain individual claims that homosexuality has "never been accepted by any civilization", or that "acceptance of homosexuality causes the collapse of civilizations".

If this were true, it should be obvious that this is then regress, not progress.

Not necessarily a bad thing if said regress yields positive results.

It is a regression to a pre-Christian morality.

A morality that sometimes had it merits, and sometimes did not.

The truth of the idea that same-sex "marriage" was practised before Christianity or Judaism, however, I can find no substantiation for.

That's half-true. Evidence of same-sex unions previous to the rise of Abrahamic religions is somewhat vague and/or ambiguous... but it's there.

The only same-sex "marriage" known to have taken place in ancient times was that of Nero and one of his eunuchs.

Not quite true.

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.

Ancient Greece and Rome were not the only civilizations that endorsed consensual intercourse between adults and minors in certain contexts. By today's standards, I'm pretty sure many women who were married under an Abrahamic faith in ancient times would have been considered victims of child molestation and sexual slavery in our times.

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.

I'd ask for a source... but I'm not going to entertain your fallacies any further.

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.

Well, something good came out of that movement, didn't it?

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.

So fucking what? That still doesn't invalidate arguments for same-sex marriage.

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/).

No. I said I was not going to entertain your fallacies any further, and I will uphold that promise.

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).

Disregarding the fact that the Daily Fail is a source of dubious reliability, this still does not actually invalidate any arguments for same-sex marriage. If true, it would only demonstrate that one gay rights activist from the UK had ties to pro-pædophile movements. One activist out of thousands.

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.

In the early days? Yeah, some gay rights activists were also in favour of lowering the age of consent. So fucking what? Are you still trying to milk this fallacy? Stop.

Just... stop.

Your fallacy is dead.

This fallacy of yours... this fallacy...

This fallacy is no more.

It has ceased to be.

It's expired and gone to meet its maker.

This is a late fallacy.

It's a stiff.

Bereft of life, it rests in peace.

If you hadn't nailed it to your post, it would be pushing up the daisies.

It's rung down the curtain and joined the choir invisible.

This is an ex-fallacy!

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.

Indeed, you're not a homophobe.

No... You are a dishonest, manipulative man, who went to shameful lengths in his quest to insult our collective intelligence with one massive fallacy.

Unfortunately for you, I saw right through your bullshit, and now I'm going to sip on some jasmine tea to wash off your rancid taste, and read a few chapters of the Romance of the Three Kingdoms to cleanse my mind of the revolting memory of this pathetic excuse for a post that I had to suffer through.

Thank you, and good night.

[Phoenixfox]

I'm not exactly rich. And even if I was...you don't know me. I do everything I can to live a life my God would approve of because I know I will face him one day and I want him to tell me "Well done, my good and faithful servant"

And where exactly in the Bible does it state that God will congratulate you for oppressing other people?

Not oppressing anyone, silly. I think gays should be able to have open, public relationships and adopt children, be happy, etc. Just not get married.

[Wisconsin9]

And where exactly in the Bible does it state that God will congratulate you for oppressing other people?

Not oppressing anyone, silly. I think gays should be able to have open, public relationships and adopt children, be happy, etc. Just not get married.

Which is oppression.

[San]

Ah, but you're removing them from their context. I don't know for sure, but it could have been instructions directed towards a specific group of people, not the world at-large.

you're grasping at straws

beat me to it :(

[Utceforp]

And where exactly in the Bible does it state that God will congratulate you for oppressing other people?

Not oppressing anyone, silly. I think gays should be able to have open, public relationships and adopt children, be happy, etc. Just not get married.

That's denying them a fundamental human right, and therefore oppression. It doesn't affect you, and your religion doesn't matter in this situation.

[Neutraligon]

And where exactly in the Bible does it state that God will congratulate you for oppressing other people?

Not oppressing anyone, silly. I think gays should be able to have open, public relationships and adopt children, be happy, etc. Just not get married.

Considering the legal stuff attached to marriage, that is oppression.

[Aeken]

And where exactly in the Bible does it state that God will congratulate you for oppressing other people?

Not oppressing anyone, silly. I think gays should be able to have open, public relationships and adopt children, be happy, etc. Just not get married.

Ergo oppression.

[Gaelic Celtia]

beat me to it

I pretty much had it on standby because it was inevitable it would be used in such a way

[Liriena]

Awful news. Thank the good lord I don't live in Scotland.

Oh please, as if this affected you in any way!

[Ainin]

And where exactly in the Bible does it state that God will congratulate you for oppressing other people?

Not oppressing anyone, silly. I think gays should be able to have open, public relationships and adopt children, be happy, etc. Just not get married.

Why? Marriage is a civil institution that should be accessible to all persons with the capability of consent, no matter what your sexual orientation is.

[Phoenixfox]

It is a typical response of a sinner to become angry when confronted with his sins. It is selfish in the sense that they are putting their own sexual desires in front of the desires of their creator. And I have not thrown anyone under the bus. I truly want us to find a compromise that allows gays to be happy and live their life while still maintaining the purity of marriage.

Well, let's think about this objectively.

Who, exactly, are you helping, when you force others to go against who they naturally are?

Helping them fight their sinful urges (whether natural or not is debatable) and find happiness through god rather than sin so that they may have eternal life. Sounds pretty helpful to me.

[Othelos]

And where exactly in the Bible does it state that God will congratulate you for oppressing other people?

Not oppressing anyone, silly. I think gays should be able to have open, public relationships and adopt children, be happy, etc. Just not get married.

Perhaps not in the Church, which I don't have a problem with, but religion is irrelevant to the secular institution of civil marriage.

[Utceforp]

Well, let's think about this objectively.

Who, exactly, are you helping, when you force others to go against who they naturally are?

Helping them fight their sinful urges (whether natural or not is debatable) and find happiness through god rather than sin so that they may have eternal life. Sounds pretty helpful to me.

Not everyone is your religion. Not everyone considers that sin. Your religion doesn't matter.