The way you spin it you make it sound like you're expected to marry a gay person. You can come out of the closet Mike, it's gotta be crowded in there.
Wynne wasting more time and money on ridiculous things....
- Thread starter Snobike Mike
- Start date
The way you spin it you make it sound like you're expected to marry a gay person. You can come out of the closet Mike, it's gotta be crowded in there.
The closet can be a crowded dark scary place...
We should remove the church entirely from legal marriage. You get married in a civil ceremony, every who gets married has to do it this way. Then if you want a church wedding so be it but it have no legal weight. Some countries already do it this way. Will be a hard sell here since the churches make way too much cash our way.
Here is is one or the other legally, you can go civil or church, I say remove church.
And yes, marriage happened long before the god of Abraham.
Shaman
Well-known member
It's the gays. They're in it with the aliens. They're up there watching us from their big gay moon base.
Just remember, whenever you hear them laughing, it's their plans for world domination they're thinking of.
This may may be the lamest, most pathetic attempted point I've seen on any subject. Bravo.
I'm still trying to sort this out. The church marriage at least implies some sort of ethical and moral tie in, for whatever that's worth these days, but a civil marriage "contract" means diddlysquat. Are you not subject to essentially the same "contract" if co-habitating common law? The state is the only winner here.
There are no property rights in common law (as one example) so common law does not equal marriage. taxation may be the same, rights are not.
The concept of marriage far out-dates modern religion and specifically the god of abraham. Marriage does have significant civil/legal ramifications (good or bad) and it should therefore be the domain of the legal system or more specifically the government. The ramifications with respect to someone's chosen deity is their business and is no business of anyone else or the government... best system, you are not married unless a JP or judge says so, what is between you and your chosen deity is your business. In the end you are not divorced unless the judge says so...so why should you be married without a judge (or at least JP)?
Last edited:
Are there not 3 partners in a gov. licensed marriage? That just became everybody's business. Not trying to be cheeky but ask the highest breadwinner of the marriage in any divorce. If it was church based they could sort out the mess using the golden rule and it's nobody elses business. Marriage makes no logical sense if one partner can just choose to end it on a whim. Why attach a gov. issued license if it has no meaning while in force only after?
Corinthians 14:34 Women are to be silent in the churches. They are not permitted to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.
Corinthians 14:34 If they wish to inquire about something, they are to ask their own husbands at home; for it is dishonorable for a woman to speak in the church.
As long as it takes place in the church it should work out well for the men, since women are not allowed to speak... Of course most Christians these days do not even follow their own bible so how can anyone respect anything they do???
Corinthians is New testament BTW, not the zany old testament.
Oh, gawd. I'm not advocating for any strict adherence to any scripture from any religion. All I'm saying if you HAD to use one or the other (church or gov.) I would use church because gov. scripture WILL put you in a world of hurt. Sane church going people know what the deal is with religion. If you're a sane person who's sussed out another sane person to marry you could do a lot worse than guiding your union based on the 10 Commandments. Do not make a contract with the welfare state. Do not let the welfare state decide your future.
Hey Mikey. Gonna boycott the Jays now?
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-b...toronto-celebrates-pride-month-012938269.html
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-b...toronto-celebrates-pride-month-012938269.html
Snobike Mike
Banned
If you're gonna use the Bible, please ensure you understand the context of the text's you claim are "supressing" women.
Snobike Mike
Banned
Hey Mikey. Gonna boycott the Jays now?
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-b...toronto-celebrates-pride-month-012938269.html
Will you sanction me if I do?
Don't these people just want to live their lives and be left alone? Why do we have to have a "pride" month? And why does 1% of the population get so much political and social "air time"?
Last edited:
Snobike Mike
Banned
Glad to see you're so tolerant of my dissenting views.
Snobike Mike
Banned
Well put.
Interesting... may explain a lot in this thread.
Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014
Abstract
The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.
Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014
Abstract
The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.
In response to your earlier Q "why do the progressives get to define right/wrong?" I replied
http://www.theatlantic.com/business...-came-to-be-seen-as-cars-for-lesbians/488042/
BTW Snobike, if you continue to have a discussion like this, where you make assertions and ask questions, rather than copy 'n pasting walls of text from highly biased sources as you've done before, then I might feel inclined to continue this exchange with you.
To support your effort to learn more, I thought this article I came across would help. It gives a picture of how the gay / lesbian struggle has progressed over the last few decades, at least from this one perspective.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business...-came-to-be-seen-as-cars-for-lesbians/488042/
BTW Snobike, if you continue to have a discussion like this, where you make assertions and ask questions, rather than copy 'n pasting walls of text from highly biased sources as you've done before, then I might feel inclined to continue this exchange with you.
