What undermimes marriage more?

[© tweed]

Marraige is a human institution.

[© tweed]

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.

God is a concept and not a human institution.  (Although he's/she's a human creation, there's a difference)

[© tweed]

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.

God is a concept and not a human institution.  (Although he's/she's a human creation, there's a difference)

No, God is the creator of the universe and the almighty.

That is not a fact.  Of course, neither is what I said, but you can't limit marraige to a man and a woman on the basis that god created it that way.

[© tweed]

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.

God is a concept and not a human institution.  (Although he's/she's a human creation, there's a difference)

No, God is the creator of the universe and the almighty.

That is not a fact.  Of course, neither is what I said, but you can't limit marraige to a man and a woman on the basis that god created it that way.

It is a fact and yes you can limit it based on that. Thats my personal belief and the belief of millions in this country. You athiests are just going to have to suck it up and deal with it.

You just contradicted yourself.  At first, you called god's dictation of marraige as between a man and a woman a "fact" and then you called it "a personal belief and the belief of millions..."

It clearly isn't a fact.

[© tweed]

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.

[© tweed]

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.

[© tweed]

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.

[© tweed]

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?

Well, I've contributed to a group of people's posts that have proven that homosexuality isn't a choice nor is it a concerted effort to rebel against god.  Look at the APA report Alcon posted and also look at how other animal species contain homosexuals.  (This you didn't know when you got up today)  Obviously ducks in a pond aren't trying to rebel against god.

[© tweed]

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?

Well, I've contributed to a group of people's posts that have proven that homosexuality isn't a choice nor is it a concerted effort to rebel against god.  Look at the APA report Alcon posted and also look at how other animal species contain homosexuals.  (This you didn't know when you got up today)  Obviously ducks in a pond aren't trying to rebel against god.

So then, if an unborn baby can psychologically "become" (i know it's the wrong word) gay, if it's that advanced, why can we still abort it?  IF it can "choose" it's sexual orientation--which will determine what happens the rest of it's life, shouldn't it be considered living?

You're probably trying to draw a parallel to abortion here, but I don't really understand what you're saying.  Don't try to turn this into an abortion debate.

[© tweed]

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?

Well, I've contributed to a group of people's posts that have proven that homosexuality isn't a choice nor is it a concerted effort to rebel against god.  Look at the APA report Alcon posted and also look at how other animal species contain homosexuals.  (This you didn't know when you got up today)  Obviously ducks in a pond aren't trying to rebel against god.

So then, if an unborn baby can psychologically "become" (i know it's the wrong word) gay, if it's that advanced, why can we still abort it?  IF it can "choose" it's sexual orientation--which will determine what happens the rest of it's life, shouldn't it be considered living?

You're probably trying to draw a parallel to abortion here, but I don't really understand what you're saying.  Don't try to turn this into an abortion debate.

I'm not--I am saying is if you believe in abortion, then you should believe homosexuality is a conscious choice

That doesn't make sense.  Sorry.

[© tweed]

OK, I'm all caught up now, you can go back to the major bombardment.  How many posts do you need to get to YaBB God status?

500

[© tweed]

After afleitch and Alcon (if he posts) post, I'm gonna reply, get off for a bit & call my girlfriend so she doesn't yell @ me, then I'll have to be off until my mom calls from FL, and then I'll be back on later tonight.

EDIT: I guess he did post.

You have dial-up? 

[© tweed]

What a pointless thread. Why waste time with this silly theological debate when Inks is clearly determined to hate gays?

I don't think that's fair at all.  Look, he's probably from a very conservative christian family and he goes to a religious private school.  He's been taught the same things over and over again for a decade and a half.  Now that he's exposed to other viewpoints, he got a little overwhelmed.  Deep down, he's reconsidering.  Take it easy on him.