Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage a Right (5-4)

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
It does not.

Lev. 18:22 , "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them."

Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

You were not a good Christian.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD

It does not.

Lev. 18:22 , "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them."

Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,1 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

*sigh*

The Laws of the Old Testament were set forth by God, through Jesus as the rules that Hebrews needed to follow to atone for the sins of Adam and Eve. They had to do a number of things that no Christian today has to do, as well. They even had to make sacrifices. This was all to atone for the original sin.

When Jesus came from heaven, he came forth with the express intention to sacrifice himself and wipe the sins of humanity clean. It was supposed to free humanity from former rules and regulations and allow us into heaven. That's why Christians no longer must circumsize sons or sacrifice unto God. It's why they're allowed to cut their hair.

Quoting Leviticus is saying that you believe Jesus was wrong. That Jesus' sacrifice means nothing. Saint Paul disagrees, but really Legend, are you trying to say that women who dare sleep with a man before marriage should be stoned on the streets? That we should sacrifice in the name of the Lord? The bible is beyond centuries old, and the Human Race is ever evolving. What matters is Christianity is founded on the basis of compassion and kindness. Why hold hate in your heart for people who share different views?

How about you follow the advice of an actual religious leader anyway, Pope Francis is the head of the Catholic Faith on Earth, and had this to say:

"If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge?"

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
It does not.

Lev. 18:22 , "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them."

Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

You were not a good Christian.

Do you go around telling people they can't eat shrimp? How about telling men how to trim their head and beard hairs?

Having hate and intolerance in your heart, does that make a good Christian?

Originally posted by Robtard
I was using the Royal You, as in "people are free to..."

QFA, ok will if that is true then ok.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Mind your language.

What's your achievement in life? Writing a thesis on Star Wars topics?

And this is an absolute indication of mental ineptness.

Address the symptoms, not the causes. You won't be a good doctor.

Originally posted by Robtard
Do you go around telling people they can't eat shrimp? How about telling men how to trim their head and beard hairs?

Having hate and intolerance in your heart, does that make a good Christian?

Let no man have hate in his heart for another man.

Ok.

If "consent" is a valid argument, then why not legalize incest?

If "medical issue" is a valid counterargument for incest, then why do the advocates of homosexuality not extend this principle to homosexuality which evidently increases vulnerability to HIV related diseases?

a child is not legally capable of consent. this is already law.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
a child is not legally capable of consent. this is already law.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
You goof, incestuous relationships can be between adults too.

wow you really are dumb, arent you?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
wow you really are dumb, arent you?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2773986/Sex-brothers-sisters-LEGAL-says-German-government-s-Ethics-Council.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/11119062/Incest-a-fundamental-right-German-committee-says.html

*edit* not even gonna bother

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Ok.

If "consent" is a valid argument, then why not legalize incest?

If "medical issue" is a valid counterargument for incest, then why do the advocates of homosexuality not extend this principle to homosexuality which evidently increases vulnerability to HIV related diseases?

Two HIV- married men will not create HIV.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
IOW: homosexuals can get married, and everyone who doesn't believe in it has to agree.

If the goal is to convince people heterosexual marriage is important, it should be made appealing instead of making everything else illegal.

Those with religious conviction against secular practice now have to act on their beliefs and increase their social responsability instead of using the government as a tool. It's very socialist to make laws that limit freedom to solve cultural difficulties.

Originally posted by Robtard
Two HIV- married men will not create HIV.

Originally posted by Robtard
Two HIV- married men will not create HIV.

And don't you just love the logic? "To prevent the spread of STDs, all gay men should be encouraged to be single and uncommitted!"

Originally posted by Robtard
Two HIV- married men will not create HIV.

Most gay and bisexual men acquire HIV through anal sex, which is the riskiest type of sex for getting or transmitting HIV.

Source: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/facts/

Ok Legend you have got to stop. I'm a religious Jew and even I recognize a ridiculous religious argument when I see one. Same sex couples obviously do not here to a religious belief, or at least one codified within any bible. I've made my stance clear many times. A belief in religion doesn't preclude the acceptance of those who do not believe in religion and are therefore free to do as they choose. I am bound by my bible that I believe in, so I will choose to live my life a different way.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
A child should have two legal parents: Father and Mother.

Many have one or none.

There's no actual problem with them having two who happen to be similar.

Additionally, sometimes this results in three- a third bioparent who, while obviously not married, still helps out.

And what issues does it helps alleviate?

Additional number of stable, loving family units adopting kids.

Increased psychological health of those involved, as one would expect of those in happy relationships.

It's also proven to be a minor economic boon to wedding and couples related industries.

Not bad for something that has no downsides, eh?

B/W I know that gay-ism is an old phenomenon. This isn't a valid justification for it just like slavery.

It's actually a biological phenomenon. And unlike slavery, is completely non-harmful.

There's even the argument that back in the hunter-gatherer days, gay family members helped increase the number of caregivers without increasing competition for mates, if you want to go that route.

Marriage between males and females is most productive for a human society. Enabling other forms of marriages may result in reduction of heterosexuality and their would be additional implications that are not generally accounted for.

One, sexuality doesn't work that way.

Two, are you implying we should force people to be in heterosexual marriages they have no interest in? Should we force single people to get married too? I will also note we have no shortage of people, indeed we have large numbers of kids in need of adoption, and gay couples are plenty productive in the 'economic' and 'able to raise a kid' areas, just not the 'biologically produce one' area. Well, unless they work with a donor, in which case they can. Not that anyone else is forced to have kids for that matter anyway, it's never been a requirement for marriage.

Three, said 'additional implications' have yet to show even after we've had people been in committed relationships, even marriages, for decades.

I consider legalization of gay-ism as going backwards, not forward. Also, implications should be taken into consideration.

Except it's something that hasn't been formally entrenched before, there were a variety of views on it but not this formal setup. You can't go backwards to something that was never behind you.

And vague 'implications' that you can't name and have yet to manifest themselves even after decades of gay marriage in some countries is not particularly convincing, not when the positive implications are so sizable and obvious.

Imagine if gay-ism spreads throughout the country, what would be the medical implications then?

Heh, 'gay-ism.' It's not something that spreads.

And if gay *marriage* spreads, then it'd reduce the number of unattached gay people.

Also, don't forget female gay individuals, who have some of the lowest rates of STDs, so if you're arguing based on disease, you need to take that into account too.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
This is not sufficient to stop spread of HIV. Majority in the WEST are promiscuous before marriage.

Most gay and bisexual men acquire HIV through anal sex, which is the riskiest type of sex for getting or transmitting HIV.

Source: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/facts/

Your issue with HIV has nothing to do with marriage, as pointed out. It's meant as little more than a scare tactic since you can't intelligently debate your point.

Yes, I already told you that as you were ignorant before.

Have anything else?