No, but if she has active cold sores you are playing Russian Roulette with your dick. That would be a case of Hepese Simplex A, now on your dick, nice going.
I have stayed out of this until now because my position is complicated. I have thought this through a lot.
We are taught through the 10 commandments that we are not perfect. The commandments are there to be broken and remind us to has humility because we cannot possibly live out our entire lifetime without breaking at least one of them. That is so that we humble ourselves before God and ask forgiveness.
We are taught the homosexual relations (the physical acts) are a sin, and those engaged in said activity are sinners. See point one, we are all sinners.
We are taught to go about our lives with Charity (love) and to be non-judgemental.
We are taught that while we should try to live in the spirit, we are flesh and we will fail to live in the spirit because of that (Corinthians). We must learn to forgive others and ourselves for our failings.
From this I take that. Homosexuals are in essence natural occurances that we must recognize and forgive. We must understand that these people have been given an enormous challenge of sellabacy that they cannot likely live up to. They are in sin like the rest of us, and deserve understanding an forgiveness. That is not to say that it is OK for homosexuals to engage in homosexual acts, only that it's understandable. The homosexual urges are a test, those with extreme faith will not act on those urges because they know it is a sin. Those people would be very rare indeed. For the rest, like all of us, forgiveness and understanding is in order.
I don't understand any homosexual who want to be married in a church. Marriage is a different story all together. I don't really want to get into it. I'm all for equal rights within public, and governement. We should all have the same rights in the eyes of our governments, after all, they are secular and have no business in our bedrooms. A church though, should never be compelled to sanctify such a marriage against its beliefs. That's as far down that road as I'm willing to go.
Homosexuals faces enough challenges without taking heat from those among us who refuse to try and understand, and from those who are themselves denying there sexuality because of social pressure.
PAX
Hahahaha: (damn I'm getting good at not over Ha'ing your nick)
Good to hear.
I said the same thing, and I don't think a church should be forced to sanctify a marriage, because of that difference of secularism vs religion. I mean, I know of some Catholic churches that won't perform a marriage between a catholic and a protestant... heck most orthodox or hacedish rabbai's won't perform a marriage with a jew and a gentile.
Personally, I think that marriage is a religious tradition, and the unions they sybolise are not JUST in a religious sense. They ought not be forced to do it, because there are other churches that will do it, if there is to be any pressure it should be from the people of the congregation, not the Government.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Quote:
I don't understand any homosexual who want to be married in a church. Marriage is a different story all together. I don't really want to get into it. I'm all for equal rights within public, and governement. We should all have the same rights in the eyes of our governments, after all, they are secular and have no business in our bedrooms. A church though, should never be compelled to sanctify such a marriage against its beliefs. That's as far down that road as I'm willing to go.
That's the adherent problem--you basically answered it yourself. In this farse we call western "civilization", the only common law "civil" union that means anything is defined by the term marriage, whether it be a justice of the peace or a religious figure, hence, "marriage" is simply a name for an act along that line. In a way, the term divorced itself (no pun intended) from the more christian act of holy matrimony.
Really, the whole legal pairbonding system needs to be seriously revamped if it's to mean anything. For me, "marriage" is a term for that. If two atheists pairbond, they get married. Same with satanists, Same with agnostics. Same with many religions or irreligions. As such, what the term marriage defines in law is what's important to the gays--equal rights, which you said you are all for.
Now, to make matters worse, the pagan pairbond celebration is known as a Handfast, which people outside of it tend to not look upon it as fullblown marriage--which is wrong, to say the least. An ordained minister of any (or no) faith should be able to complete a legally binding process for anyone that the law will allow to pairbond, which, by the very nature of civil rights, means gay people as well.
Yet, that also brings into question the "moral" implications. After all, if a religion believes a certain thing is a sin, why should they be the ones to preform the pairbond?
Hence why i think my compromise is the best. Legally, a civil union should be the de facto standard. Marriage should be left to religion, and due to the separation of church and state, shouldn't mean anything legally whatsoever.
Goodbye Callisto & Skaši, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
wow, thats funny keeper, you have the same veiw as me, civil union should handle the joining of 2 people for legal purposes and marraige should be a religious service that has about as much legal power as a baptism.......none at all
You'll never touch God's hand
You'll never taste God's breath
Because you'll never see the second coming
Life's too short to be focused on insanity
I've seen the ways of God
I'll take the devil any day
Hail Satan
(slayer, skeleton christ, 2006)
My Cars slower than your Car!! wrote:Gays are freakin gay.
Good assumption you flippin' retard
"What's a liger? It's pretty much my favorite animal. It's like a lion and a tiger mixed... bred for its skills in magic."
^^ Sad thing that we can't convey sarcasm over the net.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Marriage is already defined in the constitution. The only way to give a civil union the substancial weight of marriage, it will have to be amended at the highest level of government. At the local level, those licenses can be issued for gay marriage and they can be revoked too just like in San Francisco. And that seems to be the case.
Smile, Jesus loves you!!!!! <><
Manchild-ProPain, out now, Sphereofhiphop.com
Quote:
Marriage is already defined in the constitution.
Where? i just searched the entire freaking thing and no where is "marriage" or "matrimony" listed in it.
Goodbye Callisto & Skaši, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
Too bad. It is what its defined to be.
Smile, Jesus loves you!!!!! <><
Manchild-ProPain, out now, Sphereofhiphop.com
jbody4jc wrote:Too bad. It is what its defined to be.
That makes no sense. I simply told you that nowhere in the US constitution is marriage even mentioned. Thus, how can it be defined there?
Goodbye Callisto & Skaši, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
And you read the whole constitution?
Smile, Jesus loves you!!!!! <><
Manchild-ProPain, out now, Sphereofhiphop.com
Yes. i searched it for ever single term they can use for marriage--marriage, marry, matrimony...you name it.
I would like to see where it is in there, since you say it's in there, surely you must know where it is.
Goodbye Callisto & Skaši, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
wow....... lol
they will never be married in the catholic church.. thats all
wutever
You say that, elf, as if that's everyone's lifelong ambition.
I'm not saying that the church HAS to matty them--in fact, the chuirch has every right NOT to marry them.
The government (specifically a justice of the peace) should have every right to marry them.
Besdies, i look at getting married in a church as swearing an empty promise. If i was going to marry someone, i'd swear it upon something i hold sacred and believe in--not (IMNSHO) a false deity and a supposed "holy man".
Keep in mind, that's my view, if you want to, hey--by all means.
Goodbye Callisto & Skaši, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
I constantly agree with Keeper on this. Religion is the main opponent to gays being able to get married. This is supposed to be a free country for all people wiht alot of diversity and acceptance. But the religious nuts have turned it into a narrow-minded, God-fearing, waste of beliefs. All they want is to be happy. Read Frankenstein sometime, really opens peoples eyes up to how much some people want to be happy and what they'll do to find someone to accept them.
Premium as of January 25, 2005. Support the Org.
Hmm, it is not a choice.
UIC News Release
University of Illinois at Chicago Office of Public Affairs (MC 288)
601 S. Morgan St., Chicago, IL 60607-7113, (312) 996-3456, www.news.uic.edu
Printer-friendly format
Email This Release
Release Date:
January 27, 2005
Media Contact:
Sharon Butler, (312) 355-2522, sbutler@uic.edu
Genetic Regions Influencing Male Sexual Orientation Identified
In the first-ever study combing the entire human genome for genetic determinants of male sexual orientation, a University of Illinois at Chicago researcher has identified several areas that appear to influence whether a man is heterosexual or gay.
The study, which is currently available online, will be published in the March issue of the biomedical journal Human Genetics.
UIC's Brian Mustanski, working with colleagues at the National Institutes of Health, found stretches of DNA that appeared to be linked to sexual orientation on three different chromosomes in the nucleus of cells of the human male.
"There is no one 'gay' gene," said Mustanski, a psychologist in the UIC department of psychiatry and lead author of the study. "Sexual orientation is a complex trait, so it's not surprising that we found several DNA regions involved in its expression."
"Our best guess is that multiple genes, potentially interacting with environmental influences, explain differences in sexual orientation."
The genomes of 456 men from 146 families with two or more gay brothers were analyzed.
While earlier studies had focused solely on the X chromosome, one of the two sex chromosomes, the present study examined all 22 pairs of non-sex chromosomes in addition to the X chromosome. The other sex chromosome, called Y, was not explored because it is not believed to contain many genes.
Identical stretches of DNA on three chromosomes -- chromosomes 7, 8 and 10 -- were found to be shared in about 60 percent of the gay brothers in the study, compared to about 50 percent expected by chance. The region on chromosome 10 correlated with sexual orientation only if it was inherited from the mother.
"Our study helps to establish that genes play an important role in determining whether a man is gay or heterosexual," said Mustanski. "The next steps will be to see if these findings can be confirmed and to identify the particular genes within these newly discovered chromosomal sequences that are linked to sexual orientation."
Other researchers involved in the study were Dean Hamer, at the National Institutes of Health; Nicholas Schork and Caroline Nievergelt, at the University of California at San Diego; Michael DuPree, at Pennsylvania State University; and Sven Bocklandt, at the University of California at Los Angeles.
The study was supported in part by grants from the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health.
UIC ranks among the nation's top 50 universities in federal research funding and is Chicago's largest university with 25,000 students, 12,000 faculty and staff, 15 colleges and the state's major public medical center. A hallmark of the campus is the Great Cities Commitment, through which UIC faculty, students and staff engage with community, corporate, foundation and government partners in hundreds of programs to improve the quality of life in metropolitan areas around the world.
For more information about UIC, visit www.uic.edu
unfortunately the people who say that Gay is a choice also don't believe in scientific proof of evolution... (I'm a religious person, but I don't believe the bible is any more than a series of stories affected by 1000's of years by way of chinese telephone, and remember that Darwin was a devout Protestant up until the day he died)
saying being gay is a choice is about bigotry, they think that if they keep saying it's not so then the fabric of space/time will change... our only choice is to corner them and smash them over the head with pure fact and be ready to do it when they regain consiousness.
Being gay is not a choice anymore than the US invading Iraq for WMD/Democracy/whatever the excuse is when the @!#$es that are now in power start a new Taliban regime that was worse than Saddam.
Here is another contradicting christian. LOL.
Quote:
Michael Marcavage, 25; quoted a passage from Leviticus saying that homosexuals "should surely be put to death." But he denied a claim by the Philadelphia Gay Pride organization that he had suggested gays should be killed.
I bet god and jesus will look fondly on him when his reckoning day comes.
I think we should let people marry whatever they want, Like dogs, cats, horses, apes. toilet paper rolls, McDonalds friess. you name it.
If its just a title why don't the make some associatation that grants "gay marriage" liscnese. Theyd have better luck getting that legitamised (SP) than fighting the rest of the country.
I don't really care what you do. Join the military for all I care.
Emor8t: There are churches that grant same-sex marriage. Where does the Animal part always come from(not pointing a finger @ you, it's been brought up elsewhere in this thread)? I swear the Christian Right has some latent barnyard lust going on. I thought that was only for Scots and Kiwis.
Okay, I was being a Jerk on the last comment, but the question still stands.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Well. To make this clear my post was places with mostly sarcasm because of my annoyance with this this topic. Personally, I don't think its right that gays should marry. But There are 8 billion more things that I'd rather fight about and i actaully don't really care what gays do.
That comment come in response to the "gay" argument that them marrying doesn't do anything to disrespect marriage cause they "love" wach other. And that how can you define marriage between a man and a women, why not a man and another man. The response is what if some hick loves his big rig so much he wants to marry it, its not hurting anything right? what if sally loves her pony so much she wants to marry it?
Basically they are saying that the line has to be drawn somewhere. Of course uptights are worried if you let gays marry, then thats just going to open the floodgates of obserd marriage propsels.
20 years ago this argument would be reallly retarded. But with todays society its still a weak point put there is a minimal truth to it. I mean it COULD happen. With people today it would suprise me. But its still rather ridiculous to smarter people..... unfourtunatly not all of us are smart.
Lunatics like Jerry Falwell and to a lesser extent Rush Limbaugh (who 5 years ago, was respectable-ish and nows just a bumbling idiot) I think hurt there cause more that help it. If you have ever heard alan keyes speak hes a pretty smart guy. but perhaps a bit to radicle and abnoxious for most. (I already know im going to get flamed for alan keyes, so just save it and stay on topic)
I don't give a shjt about most political pundits.. their humming bird's tear of influence is just enough to make a career out of, and most are nothing more than suit-wearing versions of Howard Stern... talk a lot, don't say much. (keep in mind, I regard Al Franken and Bill Maher and Jon Stewart with a lot more respect than <a href="http://media.ebaumsworld.com/index.php?e=annadrunk.wmv">Ann Coulter</a> or <a href="http://media.ebaumsworld.com/index.php?e=jackmehoffer.wmv">Bill Reilly</a>or <a href="http://media.ebaumsworld.com/index.php?e=chickenbarbiegirl.wmv">Rush Limbaugh</a> But, that's only because they're funny when they skewer Rseholes & Dipshjts)
The most compelling thing I've heard (and frankly, it's not all that compelling, people tend to blow things out of proportion) is that a person could marry a corporation if the definition was written as 2 people rather than a man and a woman. Just to be certain, most corporations are not referred to as people, at best they're addressed as "parties," but then again, asking most people to think daily is like asking them to vote daily....
There are already provisions that animals may not marry humans, (at least, in 46 states...
J/k.) and most people are somewhat sensible enough to know that Animals are considered chattle, just like cars, trucks etc.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
and gay people should be considered chattle too.
end of story.
I could say the same thing about Floridians...but i don't. After all, it takes sheer mental migetry for people to want to stop hurricanes with nuclear weapons...
Goodbye Callisto & Skaši, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
