The reason why I did not want to get into this argument is because I knew that you were going to pinpoint certain things that have nothing to do with the main point, and then carry on about them. The my point is that the kind of love that exists between a man and a woman should not exist between two men and two women. This does not mean that they cannot love each other; their love can be very great, but not to the point of “marriage”.
There were many things mentioned above that I definitely did not say. Never did I say that sex was wrong, or disgusting, or that it is mutual masturbation; it is a very beautiful thing when used for the right purpose and done under the right circumstances. The pleasure that results from it is supposed to be a reward. Again, I say our current society does not believe in these statements. You validated this fact by saying that, “[I am] mistaken if [I] believe that most couples would go through the entire marriage process simply to engage in sexual intercourse.” Exactly! No one really cares anymore.
Therefore, the whole thrust of my previous post was this: In the event that a couple wants to justify living together, they would get married. I took this approach because I can find no other logic for LGBT couples’ desire to make their “marriage” legal. This is a free country after all. Why do they need the admonition of the state and government? Why do they have to make this an issue of equal rights? This has less do do with rights, but everything to do with the definition of marriage. It exists between a MAN and a WOMAN. Outside of that, marriage is undefined, which is why I put it in quotes.
If we redefine marriage, we would then be tempted to modify the definition of a man and a woman! This is what it is coming to. I hate to say this, but it all started with granting women equal rights as men, which implied that women are exactly the same as men, and this statement can be argued. You can attack me for saying this, but the truth is the truth.
Okay, so I really shouldn't be replying to this, but you mention something that brings up a point that I really want to make. You say, "Yes, let's pray for these tainted souls to be cleansed so that they will no longer attempt to be with the person they love." So I want to talk about love. Why do people have to "be with" the person that they "love"? Our current society does not even know what love is. This generation has been raised to think that love consists of fleshly desires and lusts that must lead to sex (and then to indemnify the sex, they get married). Here I will raise the example of David and Jonathan's relationship. They truly loved each other. 1 Samuel 20:17 says "[Jonathan] loved [David] as he loved his own soul." But were they trying to get married so that they could have "sex"? Heck no! Because true love does not involve sex! (Two men nor two women can really have sex anyway) Unfortunately, young heterosexual couples don't get this either. They think that they "love" each other so they get married to legalize having sex, and then, "Oops, we don't 'love' each other anymore, so let's get divorced." Does anyone besides myself think that this is majorly messed up? The foundations of our society are crumbling, and the issue of gay mariages is only one result of this unfortunate fact.
ParalagloriadeDios says...
Depends on your definition. By "be with" I meant marrying.
On Rejecting the gay and lesbian agenda
Posted 1 October 2012, 4:27 p.m. Suggest removal
ParalagloriadeDios says...
The reason why I did not want to get into this argument is because I knew that you were going to pinpoint certain things that have nothing to do with the main point, and then carry on about them. The my point is that the kind of love that exists between a man and a woman should not exist between two men and two women. This does not mean that they cannot love each other; their love can be very great, but not to the point of “marriage”.
There were many things mentioned above that I definitely did not say. Never did I say that sex was wrong, or disgusting, or that it is mutual masturbation; it is a very beautiful thing when used for the right purpose and done under the right circumstances. The pleasure that results from it is supposed to be a reward. Again, I say our current society does not believe in these statements. You validated this fact by saying that, “[I am] mistaken if [I] believe that most couples would go through the entire marriage process simply to engage in sexual intercourse.” Exactly! No one really cares anymore.
Therefore, the whole thrust of my previous post was this: In the event that a couple wants to justify living together, they would get married. I took this approach because I can find no other logic for LGBT couples’ desire to make their “marriage” legal. This is a free country after all. Why do they need the admonition of the state and government? Why do they have to make this an issue of equal rights? This has less do do with rights, but everything to do with the definition of marriage. It exists between a MAN and a WOMAN. Outside of that, marriage is undefined, which is why I put it in quotes.
If we redefine marriage, we would then be tempted to modify the definition of a man and a woman! This is what it is coming to. I hate to say this, but it all started with granting women equal rights as men, which implied that women are exactly the same as men, and this statement can be argued. You can attack me for saying this, but the truth is the truth.
On Rejecting the gay and lesbian agenda
Posted 1 October 2012, 1:24 p.m. Suggest removal
ParalagloriadeDios says...
"(Two men nor two women can really have sex anyway)"
* I meant CAN'T
On Rejecting the gay and lesbian agenda
Posted 29 September 2012, 11:40 p.m. Suggest removal
ParalagloriadeDios says...
Okay, so I really shouldn't be replying to this, but you mention something that brings up a point that I really want to make. You say, "Yes, let's pray for these tainted souls to be cleansed so that they will no longer attempt to be with the person they love." So I want to talk about love. Why do people have to "be with" the person that they "love"? Our current society does not even know what love is. This generation has been raised to think that love consists of fleshly desires and lusts that must lead to sex (and then to indemnify the sex, they get married). Here I will raise the example of David and Jonathan's relationship. They truly loved each other. 1 Samuel 20:17 says "[Jonathan] loved [David] as he loved his own soul." But were they trying to get married so that they could have "sex"? Heck no! Because true love does not involve sex! (Two men nor two women can really have sex anyway) Unfortunately, young heterosexual couples don't get this either. They think that they "love" each other so they get married to legalize having sex, and then, "Oops, we don't 'love' each other anymore, so let's get divorced." Does anyone besides myself think that this is majorly messed up? The foundations of our society are crumbling, and the issue of gay mariages is only one result of this unfortunate fact.
On Rejecting the gay and lesbian agenda
Posted 29 September 2012, 10:12 p.m. Suggest removal