There's no such thing as 'gay marriage,' says John Piper: 'It's dishonorable and shameful'

I'm not sure how to understand a person who uses an occult symbol as an avatar!!

 

I gather it’s an ancient symbol that has been used in countless ways throughout history. I personally picked it because it was the first free icon I found that I liked the look of and I find it a good representation of how most debates go on the forum. I’m as occult as a brick.

 

Marriage today is a LEGAL CONTRACT not a religious service.

 

And who the hell is John Piper????

 

No, he's a pedophile.

 

Something Europe has criminalized saying today because it would offend their muslim population, cause them to go into a murderous rampage mode, and cause the whole multicultural society to come crashing down in chaos.

 

I speak for me only

 

Address them

 

You can make a marriage whatever you wish to make it. However, for the purposes of our secular, civic government, the state may not discriminate in the dispensation of the law.

 

I understand the ancient people who wrote the bible supported hellfire and stoning for with a different sexual orientation but that doesn't justify blind faith in their ignorance.

 

My God has no problem with gay marriage. And my God is more powerful than your god. End of story.

 

Well, if you could actually read the english language, you would see that I was specifically talking about how the BIBLE viewed marriage.

 

So you are saying that I have no right to be angry at far right Christians for illegally and unconstitutionally forcing their religious beliefs on others through law?

See, the "Christian" right want to force EVERYONE to follow their religion. They want to completely abolish religious liberty in this country, and turn the US into a Christian Theocracy.

You try to make it as if I'm trying to do the same, but your'e full of ****. You are basically saying that anyone who doesn't let Christian extremists force their religion on them is an extremist.

 

One side wants more equal treatment under the law and isn't forcing their views on others. The other side is doing the opposite. One is fighting for more liberties and the other is fighting to restrict liberties.

 

Coincidentally, that is also how every civilization on the planet viewed marriage until recently.

So you have an issue with religion, not the traditional definition of marriage.

 

Except they are forcing their views on others. Namely, on the children being adopted by gay couples.

Also the children put up for adoption aren't getting equal treatment. Some of them get a father and a mother, the others don't.

Again, the freedom of association fallacy. Freedom of association is only between consenting adults. But marriage is not a contract between two adults, never has been. The contract also involves the children they're raising.

 

No "Christians" are too busy blowing up abortion clinics and shooting up jewish synagogues.

 

Why do the homosexuals have to try and use the term "marriage"? It has been well defined to be between one man and one woman.. for millennia. Why not use the term "civil union"?

I can tell you why.. it's even noted on another thread..it is a goal of communism to break down the family specifically and the culture in general

 

How does one decide what marriage "is"? If you cannot answer that without referencing religion, then this whole thread belongs in the "Religion" Forum

 

So you advocate for using the term "Civil Union" instead of "marriage". Are you saying that a Civil Union forms a more solid family than a marriage?

 

Do I need to mention Ramadan Bombathon?

 

The entire history of mankind.

What do I win?

 

I'd say that term would not be as discriminatory as "marriage" . What if a couple of heterosexuals want to make a household together and enjoy some basic rights such as hospital visits, join tax returns etc.. ?

 

The arrogance of the author of the quote in the OP knows no bounds. Luckily, folks like that can tell themselves whatever they want but they have no more say over reality than the next person. In fact, I would say the quote author's grasp of reality is tenuous at best.

 

You win an F.

First because there have been cultures and moments in history in which same sex marriage was acceptable. Second because... well... should I point out the things that have been acceptable or unacceptable in history, and are now the contrary?

Wrong answer! Try again.

Who gets to decide today what "marriage" is? And why does he, she, they... get that privilege?

No takers?