• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Homosexuality not included.

E

espo35

Active Member
9Westy9 said:
a.
the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. Antonyms: separation.
b.
a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage. Antonyms: separation.
Click to expand...

"a." had been the definition since the first dictionary.

"b" has been added in the last 10 years.

The vote was clear: people wanted the old definition to stick.

I agree that it should never have been on the ballot...here's why: The Bible says homosexuality is wrong, therefore, christians CANNOT vote to condone same-sex marriage. If the government just said- "Hey same-sex marriage is lawful", it would fall under the category of "give unto Caesar that which is Caesars'" and I'd be fine with it.

I really don't give a rat's arse what people do....but if "forced" I will take the Bible's side every time.
 
waitasec

waitasec

Veteran Member
espo35 said:
Here in California, they had a proposition (Prop 8) which asked if the definition of the word marriage should mean one man and one woman....it passed. The gays are fighting tooth and nail to have it overturned.
How is anyone, religious or not supposed to "keep out of the way" when it is on the ballot?

After all, weren't we voting on the accepted meaning of a word?
Click to expand...

52% vs 47%

if anyone who chooses to subject anyone else to their religious views, that is an act of arrogance.

how are you supposed to keep out of the way of prop 8?
are you serious? one should have voted no....
one standard for all who want to get married...
pretty easy.
 
E

espo35

Active Member
waitasec said:
no it wasn't...
you're just throwing our disclaimers to justify your arrogance.
Click to expand...

You just posted the voting results....your side lost....clearly.

Is it arrogant to agree with what you just posted?

If so..... you're the "arrogant" one, eh?
 
E

espo35

Active Member
waitasec said:
52% vs 47%

if anyone who chooses to subject anyone else to their religious views, that is an act of arrogance.

how are you supposed to keep out of the way of prop 8?
are you serious? one should have voted no....
one standard for all who want to get married...
pretty easy.
Click to expand...

Re-read post #301.

ps: I didn't vote...never have and never will.
 
waitasec

waitasec

Veteran Member
espo35 said:
You just posted the voting results....your side lost....clearly.

Is it arrogant to agree with what you just posted?

If so..... you're the "arrogant" one, eh?
Click to expand...

you made it seem as though it was clear...it wasn't
47% to 52%...that is not clear that seems awfully close.

would you have accepted it if women were voted off the table in regards to their equality by a margin of 5%...really?

fail
 
E

espo35

Active Member
waitasec said:
you made it seem as though it was clear...it wasn't
47% to 52%...that is not clear that seems awfully close.

would you have accepted it if women were voted off the table in regards to their equality by a margin of 5%...really?

fail
Click to expand...

"Close" is subjective. But what difference does the vote differential make? Lose is lose, win is win... otherwise what's the point of voting?

52% is "clearly" more than 47%....isn't it?
:)
 
McBell

McBell

Admiral Obvious
espo35 said:
"a." had been the definition since the first dictionary.

"b" has been added in the last 10 years.

The vote was clear: people wanted the old definition to stick.

I agree that it should never have been on the ballot...here's why: The Bible says homosexuality is wrong, therefore, christians CANNOT vote to condone same-sex marriage. If the government just said- "Hey same-sex marriage is lawful", it would fall under the category of "give unto Caesar that which is Caesars'" and I'd be fine with it.

I really don't give a rat's arse what people do....but if "forced" I will take the Bible's side every time.
Click to expand...
Wait...
Who is "forcing" you into a same sex marriage?
 
McBell

McBell

Admiral Obvious
espo35 said:
Re-read post #301.
Click to expand...
Hmm..
Lets:
espo35 said:
"a." had been the definition since the first dictionary.
Click to expand...
No it hasn't.
Before your preferred definition marriage was defined simply as a legal contract between two people.

espo35 said:
"b" has been added in the last 10 years.
Click to expand...
So what?
Or do you think that your appeal to tradition is a valid argument?

espo35 said:
The vote was clear: people wanted the old definition to stick.
Click to expand...
Nope.
They wanted their preferred definition to stick.

espo35 said:
I agree that it should never have been on the ballot...here's why: The Bible says homosexuality is wrong, therefore, christians CANNOT vote to condone same-sex marriage. If the government just said- "Hey same-sex marriage is lawful", it would fall under the category of "give unto Caesar that which is Caesars'" and I'd be fine with it.
Click to expand...
Huh?
So you are saying that there is no way you could use the "give under Caesar" acceptance code to allow for equal rights?

​
 
E

espo35

Active Member
Mestemia said:
Hmm..


Huh?
So you are saying that there is no way you could use the "give under Caesar" acceptance code to allow for equal rights?

​
Click to expand...

Voting for something means you condone and/or support it.

Does it not?

I agree with the poster who said it shouldn't have been on the ballot.
 
JacobEzra.

JacobEzra.

Dr. Greenthumb
A. T. Henderson said:
Christians do not have to accept it. They merely have to keep out of the way and allow it to happen, as the law and justice require, since there is no valid legal objection to it. Your church does not have to perform such marriages, but neither should it stand in the way of churches which wish to.
Click to expand...
That wont happen.
 
Photonic

Photonic

Ad astra!
How many times do I have to say it though, Prop 8 was struck down almost immediately by a federal judge.

It was unconstitutional.

Deal with it.

Side with the Bible all you want, it won't make you right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top