Gay marriage?
- Thread starter halfloaf
- Start date
- Status
halfloaf
Active Member
It was a cold day lol.
brotherjericho
Well-Known Member
I will accept gay marriage when two male cannabis plants can produce bud that will knock me on my ass.
Seriously, gay marriage is fine with me, I'm not into marriage anymore regardless.
Seriously, gay marriage is fine with me, I'm not into marriage anymore regardless.
That 5hit
Well-Known Member
ok then who says religeon owns marriage
because religeon and government is not the same ... so why not let the marry ?.. who cares... you should have donre a poll
That 5hit
Well-Known Member
so what noone,, owns that word
you cant say we are leagal married but not religously married
im an anti theist.. but my wife is a holy roller (lol) but we are married ... who gives a fuck.....
people only do a ceronmony because they feel like they have to ... me and my wife just went to city hall, then went home a fucked..... there was no church involevment ....
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i paid $5 to become an ordained dudist minister with all the powers to marry two people.
religion and marriage can have fuck all to do with each other. atheists get married too.
srh88
Well-Known Member
top right man... you got ripped off lol 5 dollars jeeze
http://www.themonastery.org/ top right...
my ex's grandpa did it so he could baptise his grandson lol
Kaendar
Well-Known Member
The justification that homosexuality is wrong and disordered does not have to have a basis in religious doctrine and moral law. One of the first areas of attack used by the LGBT supporters is to single out and attack the doctrine and beliefs of the Church, but this whole issue of LGBT rights has more depth why it is illogical and disordered in biology and secular reasoning. Using this explanation, it's much easier to justify why homosexuality is disordered to those who are not Christian and those that are atheist, and show them how religious beliefs and doctrine actually correlate with biological law.
Here is the reason why homosexuality is nothing but a condition belonging to a whole classification of disorders of sexual preference, including incest, pedophilia, and zoophylia.
1) The main purpose and function of sexual expression and sexuality is for procreation. Even my anatomy and physiology lecturer at university stated that "all you young people think that sex was created for fun, but it's not. Sex was created for procreation. If there was no need for procreation, there would be no need for sex, and it would not exist.". Males and males can't naturally procreate, nor can humans procreate with animals. So if natural procreation is not possible between a male and male, or female and female, this makes homosexuality a disorder of sexual preference and an unnatural act. Just like pedophilia and zoophilia are unnatural acts.
2) Our sexuality was created to be expressed between the male and female genders as they are both biologically compatible with each other and can procreate. This compatibility noted by the differences in the anatomical and physiological characteristics of the male and female bodies. Females produce eggs and males produce sperm which fertilize the eggs. Males and males are not anatomically, physiologically and biologically compatible with each other. Therefore any sexual expression between people of the same gender is disordered and unnatural. Nature has provided the two genders to express sexually between each other. If homosexuality was normal and natural, there would only be one gender.
3) In reality the only acceptable sexual relationship is between people of opposite genders(male and female), of appropriate age(where procreation is possible and the parents are mature enough to raise a child) and the persons procreating are not related(so no negative effects of inbreeding occur). If all these criteria are met, these all lead to procreation of healthy child and family. This is the way nature intended and not any other way.
4) Once the definition of what is an appropriate sexual relationship goes outside the boundaries of natural law( how nature intended) and is based on peoples opinion like those used to justify LGBT relationships, than one can justify any form of sexual relationship. Even people in incestuousness relationships have a right to love each other sexually, can be used to justify incestuousness relationships in the future. This is why the definition of what is an appropriate sexual relationship, should only ever be based on biological law and never on opinion as opinions change, biological law does not.
5)LGBT demand for the right to marry. How can LGBT demand rights that never existed in the first place. It's like a man demanding the right to get pregnant. Both go against natural law. It's like demanding the right to marry your dog. Marriage is an expression of natural law in our human society, so it can't include disordered sexual relationships which are not natural.
Here is the reason why homosexuality is nothing but a condition belonging to a whole classification of disorders of sexual preference, including incest, pedophilia, and zoophylia.
1) The main purpose and function of sexual expression and sexuality is for procreation. Even my anatomy and physiology lecturer at university stated that "all you young people think that sex was created for fun, but it's not. Sex was created for procreation. If there was no need for procreation, there would be no need for sex, and it would not exist.". Males and males can't naturally procreate, nor can humans procreate with animals. So if natural procreation is not possible between a male and male, or female and female, this makes homosexuality a disorder of sexual preference and an unnatural act. Just like pedophilia and zoophilia are unnatural acts.
2) Our sexuality was created to be expressed between the male and female genders as they are both biologically compatible with each other and can procreate. This compatibility noted by the differences in the anatomical and physiological characteristics of the male and female bodies. Females produce eggs and males produce sperm which fertilize the eggs. Males and males are not anatomically, physiologically and biologically compatible with each other. Therefore any sexual expression between people of the same gender is disordered and unnatural. Nature has provided the two genders to express sexually between each other. If homosexuality was normal and natural, there would only be one gender.
3) In reality the only acceptable sexual relationship is between people of opposite genders(male and female), of appropriate age(where procreation is possible and the parents are mature enough to raise a child) and the persons procreating are not related(so no negative effects of inbreeding occur). If all these criteria are met, these all lead to procreation of healthy child and family. This is the way nature intended and not any other way.
4) Once the definition of what is an appropriate sexual relationship goes outside the boundaries of natural law( how nature intended) and is based on peoples opinion like those used to justify LGBT relationships, than one can justify any form of sexual relationship. Even people in incestuousness relationships have a right to love each other sexually, can be used to justify incestuousness relationships in the future. This is why the definition of what is an appropriate sexual relationship, should only ever be based on biological law and never on opinion as opinions change, biological law does not.
5)LGBT demand for the right to marry. How can LGBT demand rights that never existed in the first place. It's like a man demanding the right to get pregnant. Both go against natural law. It's like demanding the right to marry your dog. Marriage is an expression of natural law in our human society, so it can't include disordered sexual relationships which are not natural.
FresnoFarmer
Well-Known Member
Here we go.
Kaendar
Well-Known Member
What? I had to cover all bases. Everybody said its not possible to disagree with homosexuality from a purely secular stand point. I just proved them all wrong.
srh88
Well-Known Member
j bieber... noone is going to read all that shit
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Actually, when I typed a key phrase into Google, I got three hits, each of which was for the same Catholic Answers Forum.
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=651215
The idea that sex is strictly for procreation is one of those obsolete theories right up there with other Stormfront favorites like the idea of a superior race. Modern biologists have found otherwise. Googling "purpose of sex" brings up a solid phalanx of Christian websites, revealing that this is pure jesuitry trying to pass for science. The very phrase begs the question. cn
Kaendar
Well-Known Member
Actually, if you take the time out to read it, it identifies other reasons beyond procreation. Its saying that biology doesnt create us to be homosexual. Our bodies are made to be with the opposite sex. All it is arguing is the natural condition. Which is all the argument that is necessary if you ask me.
srh88
Well-Known Member
actually.. you pulled your facts from a catholic site justin bieber... noone is gonna take the time, maybe canna because he will probably be the only ones out of us that has the time to read all that... he hibernates. wait right polar bears hibernate right
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I did, and it didn't. It assumed the premise was accepted and then used ramen-noodle logic to develop the concept of what was an acceptable sexual relationship. Face it; that is a religious screed. I find it bemusing that you'll turn the the Catholics whom you so despise when they agree with your preconception. "The enemy of my enemy" is a concept whose time has come and gone.
Note the opening phrase of point 2: "Our sexuality was created to be expressed between the male and female genders" contains the shiny bit inside the tasty wiggly thing. I'll wager the author of this little screed went to a Catholic university. cn
- Status