What is your opinion on LGBT+ marriage?

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

Inb4 Lang gets called bigoted by every liberal in this thread and all that.

Why would I call Lang a bigot? That seems random.

[San Lumen]

I have no problem with same sex marriage, adoption and equal rights for them. The 14th amendment states "No state shall deny any person the equal protection of the law or due process of the law."

[Woods Is Back]

Sigh

that's not an answer

If I said what I wanted to say, I'd be banned from the forums for at least a month. But to answer your question no, 1, I wasn't whining I was making a point (not like you would know the difference) and 2 I was talking about this thread.

[Mettaton-EX]

Ugh, oh boy. Here we go.

One thing: do you stick a charger into another charger? Or do chargers only belong in a phone’s charging socket?

i guess you've also never taken a bath or shower bc it's a bad idea to take electrical devices in there, is that right

[DeltaSource]

Forget about this post. If you want my opinion tg me and don't say I didn't warn ya

[San Lumen]

I believe its sinful, or at the very least does not accord with the union of man and woman as laid down in the Bible.

You can believe that all you want but you have zero right to deny LGBT people equal rights including the right to marry and adopt children

[Inkopolitia]

Do you commonly compare humans to electronics? Is that a daily thing?

You didn’t get the analogy. Great. *facepalm*

Here's a hilarious concept - I don't construct a worldview on sexual morality based on what chargers do...because, see, and bear with me here - human beings are human beings, whereas chargers are chargers. I know, shocking.

I am not shocked.

It was only a mere analogy of what is meant for what and vice versa. It is much more complicated than that.

Humans are much more than a penis and a vagina. This is 8th grade psychology class knowledge.

[Kannap]

Sure you could have the same emotions! Marriage isn't about enabling love, it's about celebrating it. Of course you can celebrate love without marriage, goes without saying, but marriage is a ceremony and a tradition. It can mean alot to parents as well and to friends who attend who are watching their loved ones. Many people go without getting married and are fine with it, whilst others enjoy being part of an institution like marriage.

Doesn't make sense, since homosexual marriage in most cultures is a subversion of tradition. While an old Time article and focused on Sweden, it suggests that gays get married for resource pooling and lesbians for adoption.

Heterosexual couples also pool their resources and get married for the purposes of raising children. Hardly a case of gays and lesbians having "different reasons for marriage"

[Woods Is Back]

My opinion, read the Leviticus 18:22.

I would say that i agree, but that is simply not possible with all the radical atheists around

[Korhal IVV]

Or the 1990’s.

I meant the worldview is one that comes straight out of the Middle Ages. That opponents of LGBT marriage typically have no argument besides 'hey read what this centuries-old book says' more than proves this.

Correction: it is one millennium and six centuries if we use the Vulgate.

Anyhow, Jack Thomas Lang already laid it out in concise form, and yes, it is what you call “hey read what this book says.” At the very least we can just respect each other’s beliefs. If you sincerely believe that two men and whatnot can come together, sure, I won’t bother you.

[-MAFDET-]

Doesn't make sense, since homosexual marriage in most cultures is a subversion of tradition. While an old Time article and focused on Sweden, it suggests that gays get married for resource pooling and lesbians for adoption.

Heterosexual couples also pool their resources and get married for the purposes of raising children. Hardly a case of gays and lesbians having "different reasons for marriage"

Don't talk to him. Fascists don't believe in the value of good faith conversations. He's here to give you a hard time.

[San Lumen]

My opinion, read the Leviticus 18:22.

President Jed Barlett of the West Wing has a few questions for you.

"I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleaned the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be?"
"My chief of staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police?"
"Here's one that's really important cause we've got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7 If they promise to wear gloves can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point?
"Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother, John, for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads?
"Think about those questions, would you?"

[Jack Thomas Lang]

Heterosexual couples also pool their resources and get married for the purposes of raising children. Hardly a case of gays and lesbians having "different reasons for marriage"

I'm aware, I forgot to add a caveat that I think those two reasons are completely normal and reasonable. Just saying that marrying for the sake of marriage is not really accurate.

[Korhal IVV]

I believe its sinful, or at the very least does not accord with the union of man and woman as laid down in the Bible.

You can believe that all you want but you have zero right to deny LGBT people equal rights including the right to marry and adopt children

Lang isn’t a legislator in the Senate, so he can’t really deny anyone’s rights with any sort of effectiveness.

[Happsborough]

I'm bi, so of course i support it. Love is love, no matter what. Even though i tolerate, and to a extent, respect them. There is no evidence that you can turn gay, or that gay people are created by the devil. That's just plain wrong. Fanatic Christians are trying to supress marriage by only making it so that only heterosexuals can marry. No offensive to heteros, but this is a terrible thing to do. Like i said before, love is love, no matter what. Nothing those Fanatics can do will ever change that. EVER.

I don't really care what other people do in this sort of regard. In general forcing your ideas on others is bad, save for a few examples. (That goes both ways, you can't/shouldn't force people to accept gay marriage either.)

[Quaeg]

Sure you could have the same emotions! Marriage isn't about enabling love, it's about celebrating it. Of course you can celebrate love without marriage, goes without saying, but marriage is a ceremony and a tradition. It can mean alot to parents as well and to friends who attend who are watching their loved ones. Many people go without getting married and are fine with it, whilst others enjoy being part of an institution like marriage.

Doesn't make sense, since homosexual marriage in most cultures is a subversion of tradition. While an old Time article and focused on Sweden, it suggests that gays get married for resource pooling and lesbians for adoption.

Some traditions are harmless, some aren't. We've moved past the point where homosexuality is considered abhorrent (mostly), but we still have marriage. Instead of getting rid of a tradition that does little harm, it makes sense to keep and share in it. Making it equal and open for anyone, regardless of sexual persuasion. Being gay and wanting to take part in cultural traditions aren't incompatible. It's like saying gay people can't do the running of the bulls in Spain because Spain used to dislike homosexuality.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

Don't talk to him. Fascists don't believe in the value of good faith conversations. He's here to give you a hard time.

Social fascism is a Stalinist meme for social democracy. I am more right-leaning than most social democrats due to my faith, but I am not fascist by any means.

[Woods Is Back]

My opinion, read the Leviticus 18:22.

President Jed Barlett of the West Wing has a few questions for you.

"I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleaned the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be?"
"My chief of staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police?"
"Here's one that's really important cause we've got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7 If they promise to wear gloves can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point?
"Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother, John, for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads?
"Think about those questions, would you?"

You do realize that you are only using passages from the bible that are used to address the counter arguments? if you wanted to make a sound one you would have used ones that were the argument

[Free Arabian Nation]

My opinion, read the Leviticus 18:22.

I would say that i agree, but that is simply not possible with all the radical atheists around

Wanting to defend human rights from the shithole of Leviticus is considered radical now?

[Kannap]

My opinion, read the Leviticus 18:22.

I would say that i agree, but that is simply not possible with all the radical atheists around

Or all the Christians hanging around here, some of which may have an understanding - on some level - of hermeneutics.

[-MAFDET-]

Don't talk to him. Fascists don't believe in the value of good faith conversations. He's here to give you a hard time.

Social fascism is a Stalinist meme for social democracy. I am more right-leaning than most social democrats due to my faith, but I am not fascist by any means.

Fuck off.

[The New California Republic]

If you sincerely believe that two men and whatnot can come together, sure, I won’t bother you.

You clearly don't know how gay sex works if you think that your ridiculous phone charger analogy from earlier is in any way valid.

[Korhal IVV]

My opinion, read the Leviticus 18:22.

President Jed Barlett of the West Wing has a few questions for you.

"I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleaned the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be?"
"My chief of staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police?"
"Here's one that's really important cause we've got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7 If they promise to wear gloves can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point?
"Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother, John, for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads?
"Think about those questions, would you?"

This is so taken out of context that it is hurting my eyes. If I explained each of these we would be deraield from the topic, so meh. Ask an apologetics site if you really want some answers for that.

[Purgatio]

My opinion, read the Leviticus 18:22.

Do you also think its immoral for a man to have sex with a woman who is menstruating (Leviticus 20:18), sacrificing anything with yeast or honey (Leviticus 2:11), eating anything with fat (Leviticus 3:17), eating pork (Leviticus 11:7-8), planting more than one kind of seed in the field (Leviticus 19:19)...I could go on all day....

[Major-Tom]

It's pretty cool. So long as both parties are above eighteen and consent to a marriage, don't matter to me whether it's two dudes, two girls, man and a woman, etc etc.

So long as there isn't one of those shitty cover bands at the wedding, c'mon, how have people not figured out how tacky that is?