Is premarital sex really a sin?

[Sonofason]

Do you think it apt, to compare an adult and a child? I find it absurd. Also, absurd comparing an adult human to an animal or inanimate object. Basically - you are using wrong units, comparing feet to quarts and still think you are making sense. Do you understand the inherent difference between an adult and a child in a legal sense? Additionally, you must be aware that it is somewhat demeaning for a adult human to be compared to a child, a pig, or a shoe? Are you intentionally trying to be demeaning?

Do you believe rights should be rendered based on gender or do you believe in Human Rights across the board. Are you suggesting that gay people get married to people they do not love?
You will fail. Gay marriage bans violate equal protection under the law. Everyone would do well to recognize the importance of equal protection as it guards against mob rule. Virtually, everyone is or will become a member of a minority. Slippery slope arguments are absurd. Would you ever argue that women can not be priests or soon dogs will be in the clergy? of course not.

Do you think it apt to compare marriage between a man and a woman with marriage between men? I find it absurd.
You say I am comparing wrong units. But you are wrong.
Do you understand the difference between a man and a woman, I mean in a legal sense?

I don't care much what others think of my comparisons. If I should compare a human with a child, a pig, or a shoe, then that is the comparison I will make. And if someone finds it offensive to be compared with a child, I'd say that individual thinks too highly of himself.

I do not believe that men and women are equals. Men cannot do all that women do, and women cannot do all that men do. It is what it is. We're different, and therefore, not equal.

I don't care who gay people marry, so long as they do not marry human beings of the same sex, children, objects, or animals. Marriage is for a man and a woman, nothing more. And that is what I will fight to protect.

 

[Uberpod]

Do you think it apt to compare marriage between a man and a woman with marriage between men?

Yes.

I find it absurd.

Your sense of what is absurd or not is already in question.

You say I am comparing wrong units. But you are wrong.
Do you understand the difference between a man and a woman, I mean in a legal sense?

More and more there isn't any.

I don't care much what others think of my comparisons. If I should compare a human with a child, a pig, or a shoe, then that is the comparison I will make. And if someone finds it offensive to be compared with a child, I'd say that individual thinks too highly of himself.

You are a child.

I do not believe that men and women are equals. Men cannot do all that women do, and women cannot do all that men do. It is what it is. We're different, and therefore, not equal.

There are obvious trends of abilities within each gender, but to pretend that men and women each carry monolithic differences is just false. There is a great overlap. You cannot name one trait that is exclusive to either gender, can you?

I don't care who gay people marry, so long as they do not marry human beings of the same sex, children, objects, or animals. Marriage is for a man and a woman, nothing more. And that is what I will fight to protect.

You don't care. All you care about is preserving your preconceived notions of how the world is supposed to function, nothing else. You just want to be right and to have been right. No data will convince you of anything? Is that right?

 

[sojourner]

Indeed sojourner, considering the fact that molesting little children is a crime, it is quite convenient for me that I personally believe that molesting little children is disgusting and depraved behavior, and therefore something I would never consider doing. If such a despicable act were something that I enjoy, I would find it most inconvenient that it is against the law. So I'm not really sure what your getting at in saying that homosexuals are not offered equality.

Child abuse is against the law. It is also considered to be a psychological aberration. Homosexuality is neither of those things. so don't try to lay that crap comparison on me. It's deplorable, it's shameful, it's dishonest, and just plain, bad form.

 

[sojourner]

Presently, throughout this great nation of ours, all persons of legal age have the right to marry a person of the opposite gender. Homosexuals, like heterosexuals have the right to marry a person of the opposite gender. We have equal rights under the law right now.

It's not "equal rights," though. You're confusing the issue. The issue isn't "everyone can marry someone of the opposite gender," it's "everyone ought to be able to marry those whom they love." You're denying homosexuals the right to marry those whom they love.

 

[sojourner]

it seems that you are suggesting that this isn't good enough, and that homosexuals somehow deserve the right to be happy as well.

According to the Constitution, every citizen does have the right to the pursuit of happiness. You're disallowing them to pursue that happiness.

You believe that contrary to popular socially established morals, that homosexuals, in order to be happy, should be permitted to legally violate the established morals of society.

Homosexuality isn't a "moral issue," though, strictly speaking, with regard to the laws of this country. The basis for it's being a "moral issue" is strictly a religious, not a social issue. And, as we all know, we have a little thing called "separation of church and state" in this country.

 

[sincerly]

Oh, you mean the people that bring the bible to you in your language, so you can read it? Those "scholars one chooses to believe?"

Yeah, but you're missing the whole point of that Genesis story. Therefore, it's not cogent to the discussion.

Neither was the fictional character Moses.

Only inasmuch as they are relevant to us.

It behooves the searching believers today not to be sidetracked by an unhealthy idolization of the biblical texts, and a simplistic insistence upon their "inerrancy."

It does if the details of the messages, through advances in knowledge and changes in cultural and societal norms, are no longer applicable.

Isaiah isn't condemning. It's affirming.

GOD'S Messages are correct. It is the musings of mankind(scholars) against GOD'S truths which are erroneous. Disobedience ends in destruction.

 

[sojourner]

GOD'S Messages are correct. It is the musings of mankind(scholars) against GOD'S truths which are erroneous. Disobedience ends in destruction.

"God's messages?" I don't know of any messages of God. I do know of messages of the authors.

 

[sincerly]

sincerly said: ↑
GOD'S Messages are correct. It is the musings of mankind(scholars) against GOD'S truths which are erroneous. Disobedience ends in destruction.

"God's messages?" I don't know of any messages of God. I do know of messages of the authors.

Since you claim to know "messages of the authors" then you, also, aware of the WHO those messages are from as the context shows.

 

[sojourner]

sincerly said: ↑
GOD'S Messages are correct. It is the musings of mankind(scholars) against GOD'S truths which are erroneous. Disobedience ends in destruction.



Since you claim to know "messages of the authors" then you, also, aware of the WHO those messages are from as the context shows.

I know where they claim the messages came from. Doesn't mean that's the case, though.

 

[sincerly]

I know where they claim the messages came from. Doesn't mean that's the case, though.

And You and those Scholars, you like to quote, who were not there can by doubting can change the facts? The Scriptural Messages are still what they conveyed thousands of years ago. But to the doubter----

 

[sojourner]

And You and those Scholars, you like to quote, who were not there can by doubting can change the facts? The Scriptural Messages are still what they conveyed thousands of years ago. But to the doubter----

What are the "facts?" Under what circumstances are those "facts" cogent?

 

[sincerly]

What are the "facts?" Under what circumstances are those "facts" cogent?

Those writings of the Prophets as they were inspired to do. The Scriptures by them attest to the cogent of them.

 

[Sonofason]

Yes.

Okay then. As well, I can compare gay marriage with bestiality, or pedophilia. All are depraved behaviors, and against the law in most states.

Your sense of what is absurd or not is already in question.

What you find questionable is the least of my concerns.

More and more there isn't any.

That's your opinion. According to the Bible, God doesn't see it that way. And neither do I.

You are a child.

You have no hope of offending me. I couldn't care less the names you call me.

There are obvious trends of abilities within each gender, but to pretend that men and women each carry monolithic differences is just false. There is a great overlap. You cannot name one trait that is exclusive to either gender, can you?

It is a trait of men to have testicles where sperm are produced. Women do not have this trait.
It is a trait of women to have a uterus, where babies develop. Men don't have this trait.

You don't care. All you care about is preserving your preconceived notions of how the world is supposed to function, nothing else. You just want to be right and to have been right. No data will convince you of anything? Is that right?

Yes, I care how the world is supposed to function. Apparently, you don't.
Well, sir, I am right. And there exists no data that can prove me wrong.

 

[Sonofason]

Child abuse is against the law. It is also considered to be a psychological aberration. Homosexuality is neither of those things. so don't try to lay that crap comparison on me. It's deplorable, it's shameful, it's dishonest, and just plain, bad form.

Actually sojourner, to say something is against the law is rather moot. Sodomy was against the law in the United States for a long time. However, depraved human beings sought to change that law, and they succeeded. Now depraved minds desire to make homosexual marriages legal. Oh well, so much for morality and decency.
Right now, homosexual marriage is illegal in most states in this country. It was recently illegal in all states. But as I said, depravity is capable of changing laws. So be it.

 

[Sonofason]

It's not "equal rights," though. You're confusing the issue. The issue isn't "everyone can marry someone of the opposite gender," it's "everyone ought to be able to marry those whom they love." You're denying homosexuals the right to marry those whom they love.

No some people love little children, but that does not give them the right to marry little children. Some people love their horses. But that doesn't mean they should be permitted to marry horses. Give me a break. Some people love people who are already married. But you are not permitted, nor should you be permitted to marry a person who is already married. Some perverts love their daughters. If a man's daughter is of legal age, do you think a man who loves his daughter should be permitted to marry her? Please, for God's sake don't answer that. I don't want to hear any more of this nonsense.

 

[Sonofason]

According to the Constitution, every citizen does have the right to the pursuit of happiness. You're disallowing them to pursue that happiness.

Homosexuality isn't a "moral issue," though, strictly speaking, with regard to the laws of this country. The basis for it's being a "moral issue" is strictly a religious, not a social issue. And, as we all know, we have a little thing called "separation of church and state" in this country.

No sir, it's a moral issue, and it seems to me that only the religious recognize that. We will do what we can do to force everyone to be moral human beings. But I see no reason to force everyone to worship God, or to force them to go to church, though it would probably do all atheists some good. No sir, morality is a social issue.

 

[sojourner]

Those writings of the Prophets as they were inspired to do. The Scriptures by them attest to the cogent of them.

Those aren't facts. They're subjective writings that have no authority of their own.

 

[sojourner]

Actually sojourner, to say something is against the law is rather moot. Sodomy was against the law in the United States for a long time. However, depraved human beings sought to change that law, and they succeeded. Now depraved minds desire to make homosexual marriages legal. Oh well, so much for morality and decency.
Right now, homosexual marriage is illegal in most states in this country. It was recently illegal in all states. But as I said, depravity is capable of changing laws. So be it.

I see. It's depravity to grant equal rights to people based on the biases of others and keep them from pursuing happiness. Wonderful.

 

[sojourner]

No some people love little children, but that does not give them the right to marry little children.

You're still comparing illegal, abusive aberrations with normal, healthy relationships. Children are unable to give consent to such relationships, and it has been proven that such relationships are emotionally damaging to people whose brains are not developed enough to handle the relationships. It's like comparing a high five with a much in the face. Both involve touching with the hands, but the similarity ends there.

 

[sojourner]

No sir, it's a moral issue, and it seems to me that only the religious recognize that.

No its not. Homosexual love isn't immoral. It's a religious purity issue, which has no place in the lawmaking procedures in this country.

We will do what we can do to force you to be moral human beings.

You've decided to join the fight to grant equal marriage rights to homosexuals in all states, then? Great! Thank you!

Now depraved minds desire to make homosexual marriages legal. Oh well, so much for morality and decency.

What's moral and depraved is sexual discrimination.