NationStates

Katganistan wrote:

Great Nortend wrote:Sexual relations for me are not clean acts. They result in objectionable bodily excretions. The body parts are associated with objectionable bodily excretions. Thus it seems entirely logical to me that as a society we would wish to reduce uncleanliness and to therefore restrict the use of such faculties for their essential uses only.

Your hangups about sex being filthy should not be imposed on the rest of society.

The Alma Mater wrote:

Great Nortend wrote:. Is seeing and experiencing the uncleanliness of the genital acts not enough for you? Obviously cleanliness is subjective, but that is my opinion

Are sexual acts aimed at cleaning the genitals ok then ?

Alvecia wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:
When it comes to child custody in adoption the paperwork is very important. I want two people in a very legally bound to responsible for that adopted child.

Oh, I agree that they should be legally bound to care for said child, but given how easy and frequent divorce and separation are, I'm not convinced it makes a noticeable difference whether or not the couple are bound to each other.

Great Nortend wrote:

Katganistan wrote:
Your hangups about sex being filthy should not be imposed on the rest of society.

That's frankly up to the rest of society. Democracy and all that.

Great Nortend wrote:

Katganistan wrote:
Your hangups about sex being filthy should not be imposed on the rest of society.

That's frankly up to the rest of society. Democracy and all that.

State of Turelisa wrote:I believe marriage is a commitment between a man and a woman who are in love. This love is part of God's will and grace, and therefore it is defined and bound by the terms in the vows which they exchange before Him and promise to obey.
The Bible defines matrimony as 'a man...shall cleave unto his wife and they shall become one flesh.' and an emotional and physical attachment, which is outside of these premises, between two people who are of the same sex, is invalid.

State of Turelisa wrote:I believe marriage is a commitment between a man and a woman who are in love. This love is part of God's will and grace, and therefore it is defined and bound by the terms in the vows which they exchange before Him and promise to obey.
The Bible defines matrimony as 'a man...shall cleave unto his wife and they shall become one flesh.' and an emotional and physical attachment, which is outside of these premises, between two people who are of the same sex, is invalid.

State of Turelisa wrote:I believe marriage is a commitment between a man and a woman who are in love. This love is part of God's will and grace, and therefore it is defined and bound by the terms in the vows which they exchange before Him and promise to obey.
The Bible defines matrimony as 'a man...shall cleave unto his wife and they shall become one flesh.' and an emotional and physical attachment, which is outside of these premises, between two people who are of the same sex, is invalid.

State of Turelisa wrote:I believe marriage is a commitment between a man and a woman who are in love. This love is part of God's will and grace, and therefore it is defined and bound by the terms in the vows which they exchange before Him and promise to obey.
The Bible defines matrimony as 'a man...shall cleave unto his wife and they shall become one flesh.' and an emotional and physical attachment, which is outside of these premises, between two people who are of the same sex, is invalid.

State of Turelisa wrote:I believe marriage is a commitment between a man and a woman who are in love. This love is part of God's will and grace, and therefore it is defined and bound by the terms in the vows which they exchange before Him and promise to obey.

State of Turelisa wrote:The Bible defines matrimony as 'a man...shall cleave unto his wife and they shall become one flesh.' and an emotional and physical attachment, which is outside of these premises, between two people who are of the same sex, is invalid.

San Lumen wrote:

State of Turelisa wrote:I believe marriage is a commitment between a man and a woman who are in love. This love is part of God's will and grace, and therefore it is defined and bound by the terms in the vows which they exchange before Him and promise to obey.
The Bible defines matrimony as 'a man...shall cleave unto his wife and they shall become one flesh.' and an emotional and physical attachment, which is outside of these premises, between two people who are of the same sex, is invalid.

Since you cite the Bible President Bartlett 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?"

Donestk wrote:Same-Sex Marriage where 2 people from same gender can legally marry is a thing in the world, according to Wikipedia only 29 out of 195 countries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage,
My opinion on it, is that its wrong that it shouldnt be legal in the world and be practiced. In religious views, God made a man and a woman, only they can be in a relationship together. This same-sex marriage defines, the original purpose of the man and woman, where's the child going to be? no where, due to same-sex marriage, the idea of you can love whoever you want is fundamentally wrong, cause God made a man and a woman for a reason with both their own purposes.

Im interested in hearing everyone's opinion on this topic.

San Lumen wrote:

State of Turelisa wrote:I believe marriage is a commitment between a man and a woman who are in love. This love is part of God's will and grace, and therefore it is defined and bound by the terms in the vows which they exchange before Him and promise to obey.
The Bible defines matrimony as 'a man...shall cleave unto his wife and they shall become one flesh.' and an emotional and physical attachment, which is outside of these premises, between two people who are of the same sex, is invalid.

Since you cite the Bible President Bartlett 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?"

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:I wish all the theocrats would just move to Afghanistan or Iran.

State of Turelisa wrote:Can't you distinguish between ceremonial Mosaic laws and Christian theology? Most Christians may. You, on the other hand, may not because you're not a Christian and you haven't studied the Bible.
Can you understand that at the time when the verses concerning conduct within the slavery system were written, which aren't promoting slavery, slavery was common in the world? Most people may, but present this disingenuous argument nevertheless whenever they're faced with a theological argument and know they're out of their depth.

State of Turelisa wrote:

San Lumen wrote:Since you cite the Bible President Bartlett 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?"

Can't you distinguish between ceremonial Mosaic laws and Christian theology? Most Christians may. You, on the other hand, may not because you're not a Christian and you haven't studied the Bible.
Can you understand that at the time when the verses concerning conduct within the slavery system were written, which aren't promoting slavery, slavery was common in the world? Most people may, but present this disingenuous argument nevertheless whenever they're faced with a theological argument and know they're out of their depth.

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:I wish all the theocrats would just move to Afghanistan or Iran.

San Lumen wrote:

State of Turelisa wrote:
Can't you distinguish between ceremonial Mosaic laws and Christian theology? Most Christians may. You, on the other hand, may not because you're not a Christian and you haven't studied the Bible.
Can you understand that at the time when the verses concerning conduct within the slavery system were written, which aren't promoting slavery, slavery was common in the world? Most people may, but present this disingenuous argument nevertheless whenever they're faced with a theological argument and know they're out of their depth.

You don’t get to pick and chose what parts of the Bible your going to follow. Should eating shellfish be a crime too? The Bible says so

State of Turelisa wrote:

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:I wish all the theocrats would just move to Afghanistan or Iran.

There's no Christian theocratic nation in which Christians may settle. I think Christians would rather live in China than live in Islamic nations.

State of Turelisa wrote:

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:I wish all the theocrats would just move to Afghanistan or Iran.

There's no Christian theocratic nation in which Christians may settle. I think Christians would rather live in China than live in Islamic nations.

Geneviev wrote:

State of Turelisa wrote:I believe marriage is a commitment between a man and a woman who are in love. This love is part of God's will and grace, and therefore it is defined and bound by the terms in the vows which they exchange before Him and promise to obey.
The Bible defines matrimony as 'a man...shall cleave unto his wife and they shall become one flesh.' and an emotional and physical attachment, which is outside of these premises, between two people who are of the same sex, is invalid.

It's not invalid as long as it is God's plan for them.

San Lumen wrote:

State of Turelisa wrote:
Can't you distinguish between ceremonial Mosaic laws and Christian theology? Most Christians may. You, on the other hand, may not because you're not a Christian and you haven't studied the Bible.
Can you understand that at the time when the verses concerning conduct within the slavery system were written, which aren't promoting slavery, slavery was common in the world? Most people may, but present this disingenuous argument nevertheless whenever they're faced with a theological argument and know they're out of their depth.

You don’t get to pick and chose what parts of the Bible your going to follow. Should eating shellfish be a crime too? The Bible says so

State of Turelisa wrote:

Geneviev wrote:It's not invalid as long as it is God's plan for them.

God's plan is Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh. It explicitly is not sodomy, or any other form of sexual contact between two people of the same sex.