Originally posted by Adam_PoE
There are 33,000 Christian denominations, and there is no consensus among them who qualifies as a Christian.If Christians cannot even agree among themselves, then there is no objective way to determine who is a Christian and who is not.
Therefore, we are left to take people at their word that they are a Christian if they say they are.
Right, so we take everyone at their word.
Whats that saying "Actions speak louder then words"
Guess that does not apply to liberals.
So if you said you were gay, but was married, had two kids and never been with a guy in your life, are you gay?😂
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Adam has always been a one issue voter, he shoves it in our face that he's gay and tries to make us feel inferior or uncomfortable for not worshiping his gayness.As for gay marriage, the constitution was clear, it was up to the states.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that no states could have prohibitions on same-sex marriage. That is the exact opposite of marriage laws being up to the states.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Honestly, why do gay people want to get married anyways, marriage is a fcking nightmare. Domestic partnership is so much easier and you get the same damn benefits if not more.
First, civil unions and domestic partnerships do not confer the same rights as marriage. That is why court after court found that denying same-sex couples access to marriage was unconstitutional. Because the legal unions were fundamentally unequal.
Second, LGBT people are no different than society at large in that not everyone wants to get married. They should, however, have the right to be if that is their choice.
Originally posted by Raisen
i know this is not the case but please answer my question.
should a catholic priest be forced to marry you? i want your honest answer please
Of course not. No one has ever advocated for this. Faith communities continue to be free to marry people in accordance with the guidelines of their faith tradition. A Catholic priest no more has to marry a same-sex couple then he has to marry someone who has been divorced. That was not the case before Obergefell and it is not the case after.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
First, civil unions and domestic partnerships do not confer the same rights as marriage. That is why court after court found that denying same-sex couples access to marriage was unconstitutional. Because the legal unions were fundamentally unequal.Second, LGBT people are no different than society at large in that not everyone wants to get married. They should, however, have the right to be if that is their choice.
Which they have, and now you have to pay the marriage tax..I know there was some sort of civil union that people could do that didn't have to pay the taxes.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Right, so we take everyone at their word.Whats that saying "Actions speak louder then words"
Guess that does not apply to liberals.
So if you said you were gay, but was married, had two kids and never been with a guy in your life, are you gay?😂
Yes, actually. Sexual orientation is characterized by an enduring emotional, physical, and psychological attraction to members of a particular sex. Just as one can be heterosexual and be a virgin, one can be homosexual and sire children with a member of the opposite sex. It is desire not behavior that defines sexuality.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Of course not. No one has ever advocated for this. Faith communities continue to be free to marry people in accordance with the guidelines of their faith tradition. A Catholic priest no more has to marry a same-sex couple then he has to marry someone who has been divorced. That was not the case before Obergefell and it is not the case after.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Yes, actually. Sexual orientation is characterized by an enduring emotional, physical, and psychological attraction to members of a particular sex. Just as one can be heterosexual and be a virgin, one can be homosexual and sire children with a member of the opposite sex. It is desire not behavior that defines sexuality.
So literally because a person says he's gay, he's gay.
What if that same person who's married with kids and said he is gay is lying? Is he still gay. And how would you know if he was lying?
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So if I say I'm Christian go around killing people in the name of Satan, am I Christian?
That depends entirely on which Christian you ask.
David Berkowitz is Jewish and he claimed to have shot seven people because he was ordered to by a demon who manifested as a dog that belonged to his neighbor. Is he Jewish?
Originally posted by Raisen
good, but not all gay people think like this and you know it. good
Not all people in any group think the same way. If you look hard enough, I am sure you can find someone who thinks differently. So what? The existence of the exception does not disprove the rule. I am sure I can find any number of Christians who hold unorthodox views on various issues. It does not mean anything.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Not all people in any group think the same way. If you look hard enough, I am sure you can find someone who thinks differently. So what? The existence of the exception does not disprove the rule. I am sure I can find any number of Christians who hold unorthodox views on various issues. It does not mean anything.
adam. please answer my question
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So literally because a person says he's gay, he's gay.What if that same person who's married with kids and said he is gay is lying? Is he still gay. And how would you know if he was lying?
No, a person is gay if he is exclusively attracted to men, regardless of whether he has sex with men.
I do not know why you would care enough whether someone is lying about his sexuality to verify it, but I suppose you could ask him to submit to a penile tumescence test.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No, a person is gay if he is exclusively attracted to men, regardless of whether he has sex with men.I do not know why you would care enough whether someone is lying about his sexuality to verify it, but I suppose you could ask him to submit to a penile tumescence test.
😂😂
Originally posted by Raisen
Adam, can you please answer my previous question.If every Liberal kept all the same values, but in addition condoned for the rights of pedophiles, would you vote for any liberal?
No, I will not answer your question.
First, it does not even have a plausible premise. Children cannot consent to sex with other children, let alone adults. There is literally no situation in which either party would support this as part of their platform.
Second, I will not dignify the comparison of LGBT people to pedophiles with a response.
Clearly, the implication is that LGBT people are the same to conservatives as pedophiles are to liberals, so liberals should expect conservatives to oppose the rights of LGBT people.
It is a disgusting argument, tantamount to asking, "When did you stop beating your wife," and it is disgusting to ask it.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No, I will not answer your question.First, it does not even have a plausible premise. Children cannot consent to sex with other children, let alone adults. There is literally no situation in which either party would support this as part of their platform.
Second, I will not dignify the comparison of LGBT people to pedophiles with a response.
Clearly, the implication is that LGBT people are the same to conservatives as pedophiles are to liberals, so liberals should expect conservatives to oppose the rights of LGBT people.
It is a disgusting argument, tantamount to asking, "When did you stop beating your wife," and it is disgusting to ask it.
oh. i knew you would say that. i'm not comparing adam. they are not the same.
laws can change. consent laws vary. so say that they did vary and liberals were pushing pedophila rights; would you still vote for it.
Originally posted by Raisen
oh. i knew you would say that. i'm not comparing adam. they are not the same.laws can change. consent laws vary. so say that they did vary and liberals were pushing pedophila rights; would you still vote for it.
Laws may be changeable and statutes may vary, but there is no world in which a minor is not mature enough to sign into a contract with an adult but can consent to sex with one.
There is no way to answer that question, because that world does not exist.