Gay Marriage

[falcon9]

Jesus did forewarn tho that man would love the darkness.

Good thing the gay community selected a bright and shiny rainbow as their logo!

Though the unsupported religious hearsay may refer to blind faith being a "love" of such "darkness".

[hitch0403]

The image of God is both male and female and is reflected in a godly union between male and female where the creative power of God, His life-giving, His self-giving and His moral nature are perfectly expressed. This is only possible in a heterosexual union.

There are homosexual unions that work though.

Sexual intimacy between a man and a woman is the normal method of male/female bonding (emotionally and physically) because it corresponds to the design of our bodies and because it is the normal means by which offspring are created.

It's also normal between homosexual couples. Heck, if there was no emotional or physical bond, why would they even go that route? Offspring can be created nowadays through artifical insemenation. Gay couples also have the ability to adopt children (because, in many cases, straight couples don't want these children). Studies show that these children are not effected by being raised by a gay couple. Your argument here is flawed due to your lack of cultural education.

Homosexual *bleep* intercourse carries a high risk of disease, this is recognized in Scripture where gay men are said to receive in their bodies the due penalty for their error

All intercourse carries a risk of disease though. Just because the risk of something is a bit higher for someone it does not mean they should avoid it entirely-- that's invading in on someone's own basic freedoms. They just need to play it safe. And all those diseases you listed? Straight couples can get them too (some obviously depending on what the couple is in to...).

[hitch0403]

Absolute NONSENSE!!!!

This post wasnt even worth posting to tell you that

[falcon9]

Absolute NONSENSE!!!!

This post wasnt even worth posting to tell you that

Yet, you took the time to post that your post was "absolute nonsense", (and confirm that your 'reply' would be a dodge since you requoted Faconer02's rebuttal without reply).

[Falconer02]

Absolute NONSENSE!!!!

This post wasnt even worth posting to tell you that

Because...?

[hitch0403]

Yeah my good natured self knew Falconer2 had no idea what he was talking about...maybe like being in a coma....i wanted to help him snap outta it.

[falcon9]

Yeah my good natured self knew Falconer2 had no idea what he was talking about...maybe like being in a coma....i wanted to help him snap outta it.

That is a false characterization of the rebuttal you requoted without responding to the contextual points raised.  Instead of replying to that context, you choose ad hominem, (tossing flimsy and unsupported random opinion out as a smoke screen).  If that's your way of tacitly admitting that you have no valid response then you aren't here to debate your unsubstantiated claims; you're here just to proselytize such specious religious claims.

[Falconer02]

Yeah my good natured self knew Falconer2 had no idea what he was talking about...maybe like being in a coma....i wanted to help him snap outta it.

A good natured person would take the time to explain why the opposing viewpoint is incorrect.

[hitch0403]

Yeah my good natured self knew Falconer2 had no idea what he was talking about...maybe like being in a coma....i wanted to help him snap outta it.

A good natured person would take the time to explain why the opposing viewpoint is incorrect.

Ive made attempts to show the 2 of you over the long haul what i support.Its like spitting into the wind like i just said in the other topic.Again go debate with the other guys.

[falcon9]

Yeah my good natured self knew Falconer2 had no idea what he was talking about...maybe like being in a coma....i wanted to help him snap outta it.

A good natured person would take the time to explain why the opposing viewpoint is incorrect.

Ive made attempts to show the 2 of you over the long haul what i support.

Doubtless we're both aware of what you "support", (falconer02 moreso, having more direct experience with it).  The request he made was for the "reasoning" used to support your religious contention, not more circular biblical verses.  Given the opportunity to do so, you remain unable to meet that challenge and declined to debate it.

[Falconer02]

Ive made attempts to show the 2 of you over the long haul what i support.

And what you support here is illogical. You have not challenged that fact (yet) even when I respectfully asked you to.

Again go debate with the other guys.

You're the one posting in D+D, dude. If you don't want to play with us, get off the field!

[hitch0403]

I said i dont have a problem discussing.....discussing and debating are 2 different meanings...and i am doing just that...you wanna debate that too.....LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[falcon9]

I said i dont have a problem discussing.....discussing and debating are 2 different meanings...and i am doing just that...you wanna debate that too.....LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There's a difference between "discussing", (something which only vaguely describes your participation), and simply pontificating religious propaganda, (something which more accurately describes your admitted religious "witnessing"/proselytizing).  Apparently, you're unaware that the irrational religious proselytizing is being opposed by reasoned/rational challenges and rebuttals.

[hitch0403]

Im UNAWARE that you are in opposition to God,bible etc?



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[falcon9]

No, you're apparently unaware that you're 'shooting yourself in your own foot', despite the 'powder burns'.

Im UNAWARE that you are in opposition to God,bible etc?