What undermimes marriage more?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Marraige is a human institution.

Yes, between a man and a woman, only.

Why?

Because God created marriage between a man and a woman for the purposes of procreation.

So then should infertile [heterosexual] couples not be allowed to marry?

If you're using that argument, you are saying that infertility and homosexuality are on in the same category.  So you're calling homosexuality a "disease" (that's not the right word for infertility, but I can't think of anything else, but you still get the point)

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Option 2

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Marraige is a human institution.

Yes, between a man and a woman, only.

Why?

Because God created marriage between a man and a woman for the purposes of procreation.

where does it ever say this in the bible?? ive been unable to find where god says that gays and lesbians arent allowed to marry.

Obviously you haven't been reading your bible to well...or you're blind. Go read Leviticus or Romans some time.

Sodom and Gomorah were also destroyed because of sexual sins and homosexuality.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Marraige is a human institution.

Yes, between a man and a woman, only.

Why?

Because God created marriage between a man and a woman for the purposes of procreation.

Prove it.

Just look at nature--men and women can procreate together, but men and men can't.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Marraige is a human institution.

Yes, between a man and a woman, only.

Why?

Because God created marriage between a man and a woman for the purposes of procreation.

Prove it.

Prove that we came from apes?

We didn't come from apes. Apes and humans share a common ancestor, such as the Austriopithecus Afarensis or however the hell you spell it. There's a huge difference. Genesis has more validity than the statement, "humans came from monkeys or apes."

Even if God did create the universe and is adamantly against gay marriage, his opinion is irrelevant and does not matter. There is a separation of church and state in the United States. Even if his opinion did matter, he's not a senator, and thus is not really in a position of power to do anything about it.

This country was founded on GOD.  And do you know where it is mentioned that there is a separation of church and state?  Not to mention that it was keeping the state from controlling the church, not that religion can't be involved in gov't.  You liberals twist anything that is possibly twistable to fit your wants.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

If an infertile man or women gets married, it is a sin!

Or an elderly couple who choose to marry

No.  And I can't stand it when you liberals use this argument.  Infertility is a disease (and I know that's not the right word, but I can't think of it).  So either:
a) Homosexuality is disease.  And why would God punish people for something they have no control over.
b) It's not a disease--you're argument is shot down.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

If an infertile man or women gets married, it is a sin!

Or an elderly couple who choose to marry

No.  And I can't stand it when you liberals use this argument.  Infertility is a disease (and I know that's not the right word, but I can't think of it).  So either:
a) Homosexuality is disease.  And why would God punish people for something they have no control over.
b) It's not a disease--you're argument is shot down.

No; the result of homosexuality and infertility is the same (no kids), which is the criterion you and others were using to decide whether a marriage should be allowed.  To point out that the outcome of the two conditions is the same makes no judgement about the conditions themselves.

No--the criteria is if there are no MEDICAL abnormalities, it's OK.  In fertility it is a condition in the sexual organs that causes it.  You're brain/heart doesn't say, "I can't have kids."  There IS a difference.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Inks, you are young, you are still impressionable First of all, I'm not a liberal- i'm an active member of the British Conservative Party. It's not just liberals that support gay marriage or civil unions.

Secondly infertility is not a 'disease.' It's more of a condition. It can be caused by disease yes, but it can also occur through other methods (like the menopause for example)

First--the liberal tag wasn't directed at per se you, but the whole of you.  (Why is your Avatar Dem. from the UK?)
2nd--I specifically said disease is the wrong word--medical condition is what I was looking for.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Those who think marriage is only for 'making babies' actually undermime it more than anyone else- neglecting love and devotion. Sex is for having kids, marriage is a bond between two people who love each other unconditionally.

I never said that.  But having kids should be a product ONLY of marriage--not out of wedlock, or homosexual civil unions.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

No--the criteria is if there are no MEDICAL abnormalities, it's OK.  In fertility it is a condition in the sexual organs that causes it.  You're brain/heart doesn't say, "I can't have kids."  There IS a difference.

Infertility can also be the result of long term physchological factors. Its not always physical.

Did you mean psychological (not being sarcastic)?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

If an infertile man or women gets married, it is a sin!

Or an elderly couple who choose to marry

No.  And I can't stand it when you liberals use this argument.  Infertility is a disease (and I know that's not the right word, but I can't think of it).  So either:
a) Homosexuality is disease.  And why would God punish people for something they have no control over.
b) It's not a disease--you're argument is shot down.

No; the result of homosexuality and infertility is the same (no kids), which is the criterion you and others were using to decide whether a marriage should be allowed.  To point out that the outcome of the two conditions is the same makes no judgement about the conditions themselves.

No--the criteria is if there are no MEDICAL abnormalities, it's OK.  In fertility it is a condition in the sexual organs that causes it.  You're brain/heart doesn't say, "I can't have kids."  There IS a difference.

So, it's a psychological "disease" (ignoring the fact that no medical organisation in the world considers it to be such; I suggest you look up what the criterea for a mental disorder are).  Are you saying anyone with a disease that prevents childbirth should not be allowed to marry?  How do you propose to enforce this if so?

Democrat and liberal are not the same thing, per se, Inks.

I never said it is a disease.  My whole point is that it is not.  It is a direct conscious act to rebel against God and nature.  I never said tha anyone w/ a disease should be prevented from having kids.

I know Democrats and liberals are not the same thing.  Are we now moving on to personal attacks in Latin?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

No--the criteria is if there are no MEDICAL abnormalities, it's OK.  In fertility it is a condition in the sexual organs that causes it.  You're brain/heart doesn't say, "I can't have kids."  There IS a difference.

Infertility can also be the result of long term physchological factors. Its not always physical.

Did you mean psychological (not being sarcastic)?

Yes, it was a mispelling, but psychological factors such as stress and grief brought about by loss can affect fertility.

How.  Explain to me how stress effects fertility.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

It is a direct conscious act to rebel against God and nature.  I never said tha anyone w/ a disease should be prevented from having kids.

LOL.  I seriously doubt that is the intent.

It may not be their intent, but that is what it is.  It seems clear to me that 2 guys can't have a kid, so something must not be right.  Have you ever seen any other homosexual thing other than a human?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Personal attacks in Latin?  Per se doesn't mean anything offensive.

I misinterpreted your earlier post.  If you believe that homosexuality is a conscious choice to rebel against God, I ask you why anyone would chose this, especially devout Christians, some of whom are gay?

I could show you a range of studies that suggest that homosexuality has no correlation with much of anything from a range of organisations.  Do you want that?

Also, Jake, I've seen polls showing like 56% support for civil unions.  That's a lot of gay conservatives.

It seemed like a personal attack b/c you emphasized it right after I said it.  So sorry for the misinterpretation.

I would say that any Christian who is gay has some serious problems.  I would like to see your stats--I'm a statistics kind of person.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

How.  Explain to me how stress effects fertility.

Impotence is the well known one.

Read about other ways here:

Reuters

Shortened the URL to avoid horizontal scrollbar.

Right--I know this--I just want you to explain it, so that when I counter it, you can't say that that's not what you meant.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

It is a direct conscious act to rebel against God and nature.  I never said tha anyone w/ a disease should be prevented from having kids.

LOL.  I seriously doubt that is the intent.

It may not be their intent, but that is what it is.

That's a contradiction

If gays are consiously acting in a way so it will be offensive to god, which you believe, then their intent is to anger god.

Maybe I worded my last statement wrong.  Gays know (or at least should--deep down in their heart after learning biology) that what they believe is wrong.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I would say that any Christian who is gay has some serious problems.  

I am. And I get along just fine thanks

Then I would say you have some serious docrtrinal issues.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I could show you a range of studies that suggest that homosexuality has no correlation with much of anything from a range of organisations.  Do you want that?

that was 1

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

How.  Explain to me how stress effects fertility.

Impotence is the well known one.

Read about other ways here:

Reuters

Shortened the URL to avoid horizontal scrollbar.

Right--I know this--I just want you to explain it, so that when I counter it, you can't say that that's not what you meant.

?? How the hell can you counter well documented and observed homosexual behaviour in the animal kingdom?

I'm talking about impotence, but forget it--I'll just make my point from what you gave me

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It produces a physical incapability of fertility.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Per se

Please take your profanity elsewhere; I would have expected better from a moderator.

It was a mistake.  I thought he was mocking me for saying it earlier.  Alcon, I appologize.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Gays know (or at least should--deep down in their heart after learning biology) that what they believe is wrong.

Not really. If you actually lean biology you tend to realise that homosexuality is pretty common across the board from hedgehogs to humans.

I go to a private school, so I really wouldn't know.  At least in the Bible it pretty clearly shows homosexuality is abnormal and wrong (see earlier in the post--I'm not repeating everything that was said).

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Look, Inks, it's relatively clear at this point that you're wrong.  That's fine.  I've been wrong before on this board.  It's well documented and I'll even point you to an instance where I've been (badly) wrong if you so desire.

The point is, though, don't continue to argue a point here that's been refuted.  When you come to a board like this, you learn things.

If you subjectively believe homosexuality is wrong, then fine.  There's nothing wrong with that.  But you can't argue that it's wrong in any objective fashion nor can you argue that the motivation for being gay is to be anti-god.

And how have you proved your point correct?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I could show you a range of studies that suggest that homosexuality has no correlation with much of anything from a range of organisations.  Do you want that?

that was 1

No...that wasn't a study at all.  That was the APA's statement based on a range of studies.  Unless you think that the American Psychological Association made up study results exclusively to make that statement, I didn't think you would need further references.

I want to see individual studies--b/c I'm sure not ALL of them agree w/ your point.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

If an infertile man or women gets married, it is a sin!

Or an elderly couple who choose to marry

No.  And I can't stand it when you liberals use this argument.  Infertility is a disease (and I know that's not the right word, but I can't think of it).  So either:
a) Homosexuality is disease.  And why would God punish people for something they have no control over.
b) It's not a disease--you're argument is shot down.

No; the result of homosexuality and infertility is the same (no kids), which is the criterion you and others were using to decide whether a marriage should be allowed.  To point out that the outcome of the two conditions is the same makes no judgement about the conditions themselves.

No--the criteria is if there are no MEDICAL abnormalities, it's OK.  In fertility it is a condition in the sexual organs that causes it.  You're brain/heart doesn't say, "I can't have kids."  There IS a difference.

What about a heterosexual couple that is medically capable of having children but decides that they desire none.  Should they be allowed to marry?

What do you think about this, Inks?

Nowhere did I say that you had to have kids to be married.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

As the result of psychological problems- not 'disease' as you were originally arguing.

I said 'disease' was the wrong word.  I knew that.