If gay marriage was legalized...

And I love you.

 

Whoa whoa, I don't appreciate that unwanted sexual attention from a heterosexual.

 

Love doesn't have any sexual attention. I love you as God's creature, because as this - you are just perfect. But at the same time I hate perveersion which makes you not to feel any love. So basically I love people and hate their sins. And I wish that all the people do the same.

 

I was joking.

Being homosexual...doesn't restrict you from feeling, sharing, or creating love.

 

If everyone is perfect, there is no such thing as perversion worthy of hate.

 

'Sin' is a religious concept; don't bother other ppl with it.

 

The OP seems to think that you can be arrested for not paying alimony. It's a civl matter, not criminal. You can be sued over it, nothing more.

 

No- you don't love all people. You can't separate someone from a part of who they are. It's a whole package, good and bad- either accept them or don't.

 

I'll say. My grandfather owes my grandmother hundreds of thousands in alimony... He actually lost the court case, and is in contempt of court in Arizona. They can't touch him because he lives in Texas.

 

They can ask for federal aid. One of the FBI's authorities is to arrest and transfer a wanted criminal from 1 state to another. All they need is a warrant from a federal judge. It's one of the laws passed to keep people from simply moving from one state to another to escape arrest.

 

On this issue of gay marriage, I can totally understand both sides completely.

For example, many Christians (including me too!!!) and people of other religions are against it because they believe that homosexuality is a sin and that it goes against God's moral code of conduct about how we wants human beings to behave with each other.

On the other hand, many agnostics, athiests, and (some) people of other religions might claim that a person being in a gay relationship is nothing more than than their personal life that they chose to get involved in, and that's nobody else's buisness.

Both sides are very intelligent and both sides make perfect sense, and they make very good points. I guess that the only real determining factor on this issue is how you perceive God and the supernatural word. I can understand both sides, well, however, despite my disagreeing with the liberals on this issue of gay marriage...

 

So then let's talk about the legal issues, shall we? Should religious beliefs control the civil institution of marriage? Or should it be the business of the couple entering into that marriage?

Now let's talk as a religious matter: Should religions that don't agree with same-sex marriage get to boss around faiths that bless same-sex unions?

 

I can understand your perspective. Your opinion about this issue does seem to be, to be very logical and very reasonable. I don't get annoyed when people have opinions like you, such as this one right over here. I disagree with you partially, but I can definitley at least understand your opinions about gay marriage.

I don't hate gay people. I don't want anybody over here to get that idea about me. I actually don't hate anybody for that matter. I just don't agree with their lifestyle choices, for faith reasons.

Although my ignorance about this issue is rather significant for me to have a noteworthy opinion on other side of the fence on this very controversial issue. Like, for example, how exactly does the government know/even care about marriages? Why does it matter if any romantic couple-heterosexual or homosexual, has a fancy ceremony in front of their family and friends? And what does that have to do with government benefits?

Theocracy is a very bad idea. Partially because of the butterfly effect/the domino effect too!!!

 

What "lifestyle choices" are you referring to?

 

I believe that homosexuality is sinful, partially because it goes against science.

 

Something sinful because it goes against science? That's the first time I've ever heard anyone say that...

If by "science" you mean "nature", then how is that so when homosexual behavior is so widely observed in animals of all different species? Do you realise animals also murder and 'rape' eachother according to their innate urges, I'm not sure that nature and morals are one and the same thing...

It's possible that homosexuality plays a biological role (helping to curve overpopulation), but it's equally possible that it's simply a pointless anomaly. But the role heterosexuals play in rearing and even creating new life is today regularly fulfilled by same-sex couples using adoption and surrogacy. And surely from a natural function point of view, a childless elderly couple are no different to a same-sex couple. People both gay and straight choose not to have kids all the time and the population seems to be doing fine. It's clearly not a question of morals, and obviously being anti-gay is not something that can be justified beyond the realm of saying "God is against it". Can you see why arguments like that should have no bearing on the civil question as to whether or not same-sex couples should be able to marry under the law?

 

Sexuality is, from nature, a part of reproduction, for the survival and for the reproduction of any species. Both childless heterosexual straight couples/relationships and gay couples/relationships are doing what is unnatural. This is just simply biology over here!!!

 

So, going by your logic then - is an elderly straight couple who have gone through years of marriage and simply opted never to have kids as "sinful" as a same-sex couple? My point was since when was "sin" dictated by nature?

 

Oh, sin is a totally seperate debate. I'll have to word this in a very different way from now on, at least for these discussions.

Nature dictates that sexuality is all about reproduction and the survival of some species. Sexuality, is, from an anatomical and from a biological POV, just a tool for reproduction.

 

But "natural" has no real connection to "moral". It's the classic is-ought problem. It's "natural" that the female of the species is essentially the one that wears the pants in the relationship - is our current patriarchal system wrong? What's more, your assertion of what's "natural" is entirely subjective. It's based on your opinion and nothing else. Like, how is homosexuality unnatural when it's practiced by countless "natural" animals (upwards of 1000 species and counting)? And besides, in a tribe- or clan-like structure, not every breeding pair should mate, lest the tribe exhaust its resources. There's just so much wrong with this argument.

 

What "lifestyle choices" are you referring to?

What 'lifestyle'?!

What 'choices'?!

 

With human beings... we know that sex is used for far-more than "reproduction". That is and has been obvious for centuries. So, what are YOU talking about?

That is VERY MUCH your opinion. If that is what you believe... I'm not going to argue it with you. Just know that millions of others have good reason to disagree with you.

It's not as 'simple' as you'd like it be. Sorry.

 

Biology class examples what sexuality is. Sexuality is about reproduction, it's about creating new members of some/a certain kind of species. It's nessecary for the survival of the species.

No sarcasm is intended over here, BTW!!!

 

I feel sorry for your partner if you think sexuality is only about reproduction.

 

Non-procreative sexuality, regardless of whether or not it's heterosexual or homosexual, is very unnatural and it goes against nature....