The House of Hades
discussion
NICO… YOU KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT O.o
Brown wrote: "Marriage, under the laws of nature, did exist before the Church. It existed from the time of Adam and Eve (the first 'marriage'). The sacrament of marriage was instituted by the Church. Some people..."I take much objection to these points. First of all, you misuse the term "natural law" and "laws of nature." The latter means the scientific equations that govern the physics of the universe (such as force being the product of mass and acceleration), of which "marriage is between a man and a woman" is definitely not a part of. The former is a very vague term and also does not by its nature dictate that marriage is strictly heterosexual.
Furthermore, one of the first lessons when learning linguistics is that language is fundamentally arbitrary. So yes, if enough people say you are a tree, then you are a tree; if we agree that marriage is a union between two people of any gender or sex, than marriage is that. How would the "unity" part need to be redefined, and even if it does, does that matter? As a matter of fact, we already in our history redefined marriage long before the LGBTQ+ rights movement; it previously was (and still is in certain Islamic countries, but not in the West) a union between one man and one or more women.
Also, while sex originally evolved solely as a reproductive feature, that does not mean that it has stayed that way; sex is also a social feature, as seen in our close relatives the bonobos, who use both heterosexual and homosexual sex to foster and repair relations within the troop. And consummation does not need to be penile-vaginal penetration.
Regarding contraception, we keep flowers without regard of their ability to be in pollination range of other flowers of the same species because of the pleasure they bring us; likewise, humans have protected sex because of the pleasure it brings them. You are also making sweeping generalizations while setting up a birth control straw man. Just because a couple uses birth control does not mean they think, "Children are no good." They could already have kids and not want more, not want a child yet, or be unable to financially support a(nother) child, to pick out three reasons from the top of my head. And when used correctly, modern forms of birth control ARE reliable )many right-wing politicians and pundits have lied about this when trying to support abstinence programs in lieu of sex ed, which is where the misconception comes from) Does that mean a 0% conception rate when using them? No, but pretty darn close.
Brown, what the hell do you have against love, sex, and marriage?
How did this subject move to birth control and Christianity?!
Blogger wrote: "How did this subject move to birth control and Christianity?!"
No idea. Other people kept bringing them up. I'm just responding.
No idea. Other people kept bringing them up. I'm just responding.
Matthew wrote: "Brown wrote: "Marriage, under the laws of nature, did exist before the Church. It existed from the time of Adam and Eve (the first 'marriage'). The sacrament of marriage was instituted by the Churc..."
And do you advocate what those Islamic people do? Why or why not?
Because they're so obscure to you right now you imagine it's actually acceptable and fair "for them" to have more than one wife?
Do you realize that all your arguments can be applied to incest, polygamy, bestality, pornogrophy, masturbation, etc?
I get that you don't care what others do. The question is why do YOU draw lines (or not) in any of those cases?
Someone here said they don't support incest because "it's just weird."
I take that the same way as when people say that about gay marriage. It's not a full detailed expression of WHY it's "weird," but a natural reaction that shouldn't be taken lightly.
Bonobos also eat insect larvae and dirt. Bottom line: we're not inclined to follow their lead. We're actually above them. Where do you think the expression, "don't act like animals" came from? It's not relevant in any case.
Actually, that's the purpose of flowers. The analogy was about trees that give fruit... but you get the point. :P
I'm only really trying to say that contraception isn't an argument for how casual sex is "normal" when it's clearly something we're only forcing to be normal. Reliable or not, birth control is artificial. (No, not all artificial things are bad. I'm only pointing it out because people are acting as if it's not artificial). It's not proof that sex isn't sacred or that we should take it lightly.
And do you advocate what those Islamic people do? Why or why not?
Because they're so obscure to you right now you imagine it's actually acceptable and fair "for them" to have more than one wife?
Do you realize that all your arguments can be applied to incest, polygamy, bestality, pornogrophy, masturbation, etc?
I get that you don't care what others do. The question is why do YOU draw lines (or not) in any of those cases?
Someone here said they don't support incest because "it's just weird."
I take that the same way as when people say that about gay marriage. It's not a full detailed expression of WHY it's "weird," but a natural reaction that shouldn't be taken lightly.
Bonobos also eat insect larvae and dirt. Bottom line: we're not inclined to follow their lead. We're actually above them. Where do you think the expression, "don't act like animals" came from? It's not relevant in any case.
Actually, that's the purpose of flowers. The analogy was about trees that give fruit... but you get the point. :P
I'm only really trying to say that contraception isn't an argument for how casual sex is "normal" when it's clearly something we're only forcing to be normal. Reliable or not, birth control is artificial. (No, not all artificial things are bad. I'm only pointing it out because people are acting as if it's not artificial). It's not proof that sex isn't sacred or that we should take it lightly.
Natalie wrote: "Allison ~God's NOT dead~ wrote: "I read the King James Version of the Bible, along with the Book of Mormon. (Yes, I'm Mormon. Watch me get attacked now.) No where in those books does it say that yo..."1) There are different versions of the Bible, and trust me, my version does not say anything crazy and outrageous.
2) Some people up there are starting to get into a premarital sex discussion so I decided to stand up for what I believe in.
❄ sʜᴀʜᴅɪᴀ ❄ ᵃᶫᶫ ᵒᶠ ʸᵒᵘʳ ᶠᶫᵃʷˢ ᵃᶰᵈ ᵃᶫᶫ ᵒᶠ ᵐʸ ᶠᶫᵃʷˢ ❄ wrote: "Thank you, I wouldn't say I'm the most logical, but...I have a question for everyone: would you say that the right to get married is a basic human right?"
*shrugs* I'm really confused about all the political stuff that's going on now. The "rights" and stuff...gives me a headache.
Blogger wrote: "How did this subject move to birth control and Christianity?!"I have no clue....at first it was Nico and what is moral and if sex is okay before marriage....
Maybe we should just change the subject...? This is getting awkward...
HOW CUTE ARE PUGS?
Brown wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Brown wrote: "Marriage, under the laws of nature, did exist before the Church. It existed from the time of Adam and Eve (the first 'marriage'). The sacrament of marriage was institu..."I was not saying the Islamic world is something we should emulate (I feel very much to the contrary); just that the definition of marriage has changed over history.
Now you're verging on slippery slope fallacy territory, and claiming I'm bringing up points which I do not feel I insinuated, and if you feel I did insinuate those points, then it was completely unintentional Regarding incest, quite possibly the best argument against it is that any children from such a relation have a substantially higher risk of genetic defects.
I generally draw the lines at: "How does this affect me?" and, if not, "Are all parties giving informed consent?" and/or: "Is anyone being harmed by this?"
I do not feel we are "above" bonobos or any other animal in a biological sense, just different, and that such a view is highly anthropocentric.
I understood your original flower analogy, I was pointing out the (admittedly stretched) positioning of a lone flower without access to pollination and contraception.
I do agree that sex should not be taken lightly, but I don't hold it sacred either.
To Shahdia et al.:
I was not saying most Muslims, or even most Muslim-dominant countries practice polygamy, just that it is not completely extinct.
AND PUGS ARE ADORABLE!
I KNOW PUGS ARE ADORABLE!!!
......I think I'm reading a way different version of the Bible than everyone else.
H99 wrote: "Allison ~God's NOT dead~ wrote: "I KNOW PUGS ARE ADORABLE!!!"Yes, they are! Dogs, in general, are adorable!"
DOGGIES!!!
❄ sʜᴀʜᴅɪᴀ ❄ ᵃᶫᶫ ᵒᶠ ʸᵒᵘʳ ᶠᶫᵃʷˢ ᵃᶰᵈ ᵃᶫᶫ ᵒᶠ ᵐʸ ᶠᶫᵃʷˢ ❄ wrote: "Ohmigosh. Brown, you are aware that a majority of Islamic people nowadays don't practice polygamy any more? There is some, but not in the gross majority that you are referring to ('those Islamic pe..."
What in the world are you talking about????
I was talking about Islamic people who practice that because someone else brought it up. I would've never even thought of it.
Of COURSE not all Islamic people do that!!!
You are all WAY too high strung when it comes to thinking people are prejudice.
I'm glad this happened because it's a good example of exactly how you act about people who disagree with the gay lifestyle too, and it's really, REALLY dishonest to jump on people like that.
"Why is there so much hate these days"
Gee, I don't know. Maybe you look for it under every rock?
(Not to fly off the handle, but geez guys)
What in the world are you talking about????
I was talking about Islamic people who practice that because someone else brought it up. I would've never even thought of it.
Of COURSE not all Islamic people do that!!!
You are all WAY too high strung when it comes to thinking people are prejudice.
I'm glad this happened because it's a good example of exactly how you act about people who disagree with the gay lifestyle too, and it's really, REALLY dishonest to jump on people like that.
"Why is there so much hate these days"
Gee, I don't know. Maybe you look for it under every rock?
(Not to fly off the handle, but geez guys)
Matthew wrote: "Brown wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Brown wrote: "Marriage, under the laws of nature, did exist before the Church. It existed from the time of Adam and Eve (the first 'marriage'). The sacrament of marria..."
No, it's different than a slippery slope because I'm not saying, "if a happens than b will happen, solely because a happened."
I'm saying that following the same line of logic, you are essentially defending most or some of those things.
For example, if you base everything on whether or not it affects you, whether or not all parties consent, and if anyone is being harmed, you could apply that to porn just as easily.
The scary thing is, some people on this thread WERE defending porn.
"Well, I wouldn't personally look at it, but I don't care if others do."
I'm not talking about whether or not you personally "care." I'm talking about an action in and of itself.
But maybe you're right as far as, we SHOULD be discussing whether or not something is harmful.
Actually, the debate lies mainly around the "is it harmful" question. Some people think those things are harmful. That's what we're trying to discuss. It does no good to push away the discussion with "but who cares if it doesn't affect me?"
Can we at least admit it's a waste of time to shut down conversations with that?
No, it's different than a slippery slope because I'm not saying, "if a happens than b will happen, solely because a happened."
I'm saying that following the same line of logic, you are essentially defending most or some of those things.
For example, if you base everything on whether or not it affects you, whether or not all parties consent, and if anyone is being harmed, you could apply that to porn just as easily.
The scary thing is, some people on this thread WERE defending porn.
"Well, I wouldn't personally look at it, but I don't care if others do."
I'm not talking about whether or not you personally "care." I'm talking about an action in and of itself.
But maybe you're right as far as, we SHOULD be discussing whether or not something is harmful.
Actually, the debate lies mainly around the "is it harmful" question. Some people think those things are harmful. That's what we're trying to discuss. It does no good to push away the discussion with "but who cares if it doesn't affect me?"
Can we at least admit it's a waste of time to shut down conversations with that?
❄ sʜᴀʜᴅɪᴀ ❄ ᵃᶫᶫ ᵒᶠ ʸᵒᵘʳ ᶠᶫᵃʷˢ ᵃᶰᵈ ᵃᶫᶫ ᵒᶠ ᵐʸ ᶠᶫᵃʷˢ ❄ wrote: "Also, I never said I agree with the gay lifestyle. I don't know where you're getting this dishonest stuff from. Different people find different things offensive."
Sorry if I said anything that was out of line.
To clarify, I was just referring to some hypothetical islamic people that someone else brought up... I'm not sure how it was implied they were a representation of all or even most Islamic people. I think this is just a case of miscommunication.
Sorry about that.
Sorry if I said anything that was out of line.
To clarify, I was just referring to some hypothetical islamic people that someone else brought up... I'm not sure how it was implied they were a representation of all or even most Islamic people. I think this is just a case of miscommunication.
Sorry about that.
❄ sʜᴀʜᴅɪᴀ ❄ ᵃᶫᶫ ᵒᶠ ʸᵒᵘʳ ᶠᶫᵃʷˢ ᵃᶰᵈ ᵃᶫᶫ ᵒᶠ ᵐʸ ᶠᶫᵃʷˢ ❄ wrote: "Let's go with that. Sorry for offending you, I must have read your comment wrong."
Yeah, no problem. I understand these comments can get confusing, especially the tone of them.
Yeah, no problem. I understand these comments can get confusing, especially the tone of them.
Matthew wrote: "Allison ~God's NOT dead~ wrote: "......I think I'm reading a way different version of the Bible than everyone else."
*cough* King Solomon *cough*"
*cough* King James *cough*
From the Greek Mythos to the Roman Mythos to teh Christian Mythos.No one does it better than GoodReads©
So...Will I be forgiven if I just state an opinion on Nico instead of joining this little debate thingy?
V wrote: "So...
Will I be forgiven if I just state an opinion on Nico instead of joining this little debate thingy?"
Yes. State away.
Will I be forgiven if I just state an opinion on Nico instead of joining this little debate thingy?"
Yes. State away.
State. State is an odd word. And yes. But you do not need to apologize for it.Maybe I should've just stated my opinion and left...
Allison ~God's NOT dead~ wrote: "State. State is an odd word. And yes. But you do not need to apologize for it.Maybe I should've just stated my opinion and left..."
Brain malfunctioning:Loading.......
*cough* Okay *cough*.All my personal and religious opinions aside, that chapter practically knocked me into a coma. I still don't think I'm really awake yet.
It was shocking, especially since I didn't see it coming. Others were lucky enough to connect it to his behavior in the previous books, but I definitely wasn't. The first time I read about Nico I was still in the "immature, annoying fangirl" stage and developed one of those embarrassing kid crushes on him, so yeah. I seriously didn't see it coming.
To be honest, I don't have much of an issue with it except now my friends and I are going insane on how MoA will turn out. We all thought it was bad enough worrying who dies, now there's this and to be honest we've grown a little too fond of Nico, Annabeth, and Percy to handle how this will affect them.
I do think it's a little forced though. Not just Nico, but the romance surrounding Percy in general. Others have mentioned it, but Percy seems to be thinking so much about his future with Annabeth even if it seems that their romance is more on cutesy puppy love. Maybe almost dying every time changes teenage perspective? Concerning Rachel and Calypso, I just didn't get it. Rachel could probably be forgiven since that was sort of a crush thing, but Calypso just sort of... I dunno. The whole "cursed to fall in love" doesn't seem like a good enough excuse for what I thought was a poorly written romance.
So when Nico just popped up I.
Well.
I just.
What?
I really, really didn't see it coming. And I don't think I can find a good excuse for it either. At this point I'm only hoping the moron doesn't die for Percy or--God forbid-- Annabeth, else I'll declare myself 100% done with any book concerned with love.
Honestly its not a big deal. A child can still read it! Kids already know about gay marriage. Its Ok
Randomfreckles wrote: "Honestly its not a big deal. A child can still read it! Kids already know about gay marriage. Its Ok"I can assure you that none of my little siblings know what gay marriage is. And the oldest is 11.
really? sorry, but, I disagree with you! I'm not trying to make you mad, but why stop the book! you think it's good ecxept for that, so why leave the series after reading 9 books! also I think we should get out of gay peoples lives! It's there life! it was a bold thing the author did, and I'm still not sure if I like it or not. okay now i know your not going to friend me.
Ariel wrote: "Jasmine wrote: "Not reading the last book because of Nico's little "episode". This is inappropriate, and I will have nothing to do with an author who supports gay rights. This is violating, and hor..."sorry, but I disagree with you! I'm not trying to make you mad, but why stop the book! you think it's good ecxept for that, so why leave the series after reading 9 books! also I think we should get out of gay peoples lives! It's there life! it was a bold thing the author did, and I'm still not sure if I like it or not. okay now i know your not going to friend me.
I think the nico thing is really sad
Allison ~God's NOT dead~ wrote: "Randomfreckles wrote: "Honestly its not a big deal. A child can still read it! Kids already know about gay marriage. Its Ok"I can assure you that none of my little siblings know what gay marriage..."
How?
Natalie wrote: "Allison ~God's NOT dead~ wrote: "Randomfreckles wrote: "Honestly its not a big deal. A child can still read it! Kids already know about gay marriage. Its Ok"I can assure you that none of my littl..."
Because my parents don't want them corrupted just yet.
Allison ~God's NOT dead~ wrote: "Natalie wrote: "Allison ~God's NOT dead~ wrote: "Randomfreckles wrote: "Honestly its not a big deal. A child can still read it! Kids already know about gay marriage. Its Ok"
I can assure you that ..."
oh boy
I can assure you that ..."
oh boy
Brooke wrote: "Allison ~God's NOT dead~ wrote: "Natalie wrote: "Allison ~God's NOT dead~ wrote: "Randomfreckles wrote: "Honestly its not a big deal. A child can still read it! Kids already know about gay marriage..."What? It's true.
Allison ~God's NOT dead~ wrote: "Natalie wrote: "Allison ~God's NOT dead~ wrote: "Randomfreckles wrote: "Honestly its not a big deal. A child can still read it! Kids already know about gay marriage. Its Ok"I can assure you that ..."
Would you like to explain how two consenting people happily marrying is corrupted? Because I would simply love to hear it.
Natalie wrote: "Allison ~God's NOT dead~ wrote: "Natalie wrote: "Allison ~God's NOT dead~ wrote: "Randomfreckles wrote: "Honestly its not a big deal. A child can still read it! Kids already know about gay marriage..."The natural way--the way it is supposed to be--is a man and woman, husband and wife, sealed together and able to bring children into this world. A man and a man cannot bring children, and woman and a woman does not equal a child. Marriage is about family. If there aren't children, where's the family?
If anyone could get married to anyone, and if anyone could have a child with anyone--the opposite sex or not--then what is the point in being a certain gender--boy or girl? Why would a man and a woman be created, if it even doesn't matter in the long run?
Elder Boyd K. Packer said: “The only legitimate employment of the powers of procreation is between husband and wife who have been legally and lawfully married."
The Family: A Proclamation to the World says: "God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife....The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity."
The LDS Church says this: "From the beginning, the sacred nature of marriage was closely linked to the power of procreation. After creating Adam and Eve, God commanded them to “be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth,”[3] and they brought forth children, forming the first family. Only a man and a woman together have the natural biological capacity to conceive children. This power of procreation—to create life and bring God’s spirit children into the world—is divinely given. Misuse of this power undermines the institution of the family.[4]
For millennia, strong families have served as the fundamental institution for transmitting to future generations the moral strengths, traditions, and values that sustain civilization. In 1948, the world’s nations issued the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, affirming that “the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society.”[5]
Marriage is far more than a contract between individuals to ratify their affections and provide for mutual obligations. Rather, marriage is a vital institution for rearing children and teaching them to become responsible adults. Throughout the ages, governments of all types have recognized marriage as essential in preserving social stability and perpetuating life. Regardless of whether marriages were performed as a religious rite or a civil ceremony, in almost every culture marriage has been protected and endorsed by governments primarily to preserve and foster the institution most central to rearing children and teaching them the moral values that undergird civilization.
It is true that some couples who marry will not have children, either by choice or because of infertility. The special status granted marriage is nevertheless closely linked to the inherent powers and responsibilities of procreation and to the innate differences between the genders. By contrast, same-sex marriage is an institution no longer linked to gender—to the biological realities and complementary natures of male and female. Its effect is to decouple marriage from its central role in creating life, nurturing time-honored values, and fostering family bonds across generations."
And I 100% agree.
Think of it this way: If everyone was involved in gay marriage and gender didn't matter anymore, and I mean everyone, birth rates would get even lower, resulting in more elderly people and less population. Since there are no children, children's doctors, teachers, children's nurses, toy makers, all those people would lose their jobs, which results in an even worse economy. An even worse economy means that there is more job layoffs, and all that good stuff. Just think about it.
❄ sʜᴀʜᴅɪᴀ ❄ ᵃᶫᶫ ᵒᶠ ʸᵒᵘʳ ᶠᶫᵃʷˢ ᵃᶰᵈ ᵃᶫᶫ ᵒᶠ ᵐʸ ᶠᶫᵃʷˢ ❄ wrote: "'Natural way'? Allison, there's no natural way. It's human nature to change with the times - if we hadn't, we'd still be wearing loincloths and blue paint while hunting through the forest. Heck, we..."
Actually the Bible never says polygamy is allowed, though there were some people who engaged in it.
*prepares to get attacked for "bringing up the Bible" when someone else did*
Actually the Bible never says polygamy is allowed, though there were some people who engaged in it.
*prepares to get attacked for "bringing up the Bible" when someone else did*
We can argue about this all we want, but when you actually look at the human body, it's kind of obvious people aren't meant to be gay.
You're fighting for the rights to do what, exactly?
Think about it.
Whether it "affects me" or not, it seems pretty clear how unnecessary it is. At least don't try to argue that it's "basic human nature."
You're fighting for the rights to do what, exactly?
Think about it.
Whether it "affects me" or not, it seems pretty clear how unnecessary it is. At least don't try to argue that it's "basic human nature."
❄ sʜᴀʜᴅɪᴀ ❄ ᵃᶫᶫ ᵒᶠ ʸᵒᵘʳ ᶠᶫᵃʷˢ ᵃᶰᵈ ᵃᶫᶫ ᵒᶠ ᵐʸ ᶠᶫᵃʷˢ ❄ wrote: "'Natural way'? Allison, there's no natural way. It's human nature to change with the times - if we hadn't, we'd still be wearing loincloths and blue paint while hunting through the forest. Heck, we..."
Thanks, Shahdia. That's exactly what I was going to say.
Relax, Brown. I'm not going to attack you.
Thanks, Shahdia. That's exactly what I was going to say.
Relax, Brown. I'm not going to attack you.
Allison ~God's NOT dead~ wrote: "Natalie wrote: "Allison ~God's NOT dead~ wrote: "Natalie wrote: "Allison ~God's NOT dead~ wrote: "Randomfreckles wrote: "Honestly its not a big deal. A child can still read it! Kids already know ab..."There are seven billion people on Earth. We don't need more people, and I, frankly, don't want anymore. Marriage is not simply about children, marriage is about loving and respecting another person so much you want to be with them forever. If two people of the same gender want to be together forever, than who are you to stop them? Who is anyone to stop them? It's their life, and they should be able to live it as they want it. Happy people marrying will not impact your life in any way, shape, or form. There are 9 million LGBT people in the US alone, and they deserve the right to marry, regardless of other's beliefs. Shoving your opinion down people's throats isn't going to change who likes penis and who likes vagina. What kind of world do we live in, where people can be stopped from marrying because "it's always been that way"? The times change, and nobodies going to stop that because you don't like it.
Brooke wrote: "*applauds Natalie*"It boggles the mind that people still believe that the world just shouldn't change, regardless of how much better it is for people of all kinds.
Brown wrote: "❄ sʜᴀʜᴅɪᴀ ❄ ᵃᶫᶫ ᵒᶠ ʸᵒᵘʳ ᶠᶫᵃʷˢ ᵃᶰᵈ ᵃᶫᶫ ᵒᶠ ᵐʸ ᶠᶫᵃʷˢ ❄ wrote: "'Natural way'? Allison, there's no natural way. It's human nature to change with the times - if we hadn't, we'd still be wearing loinclot..."This is correct.
"Man's laws cannot make moral what God has declared immoral."--Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.
And also, how that old saying goes, "If your friend jumps off a bridge, would you too?" I certainly wouldn't. God's law does not change ever, no matter what people do. And nobody can change that.
Allison ~God's NOT dead~ wrote: ""Man's laws cannot make moral what God has declared immoral."--Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.
And also, how that old saying goes, "If your friend jumps off a bridge, ..."
I appreciate that you think gay marriage can be compared to jumping off a bridge. That's just great. But look, let's put religion aside for just a bit, and use pure logic. No one has ever voted on straight marriage. No one has ever stared at straight couples in the mall and made snide comments about how disgusting that is. And I'm willing to bet no straight person is terrified to reveal their sexuality because they know they would be utterly rejected by their family. Yet LGBT individuals are forced to live like that on a daily basis. Does that make any sense? Does it make sense to force people to suffer because of how you feel about who they love? Why do you even get a say on how they feel? Why is sexuality supposed to change everything, when LGBT individuals are still people? Why?
Natalie wrote: "Allison ~God's NOT dead~ wrote: ""Man's laws cannot make moral what God has declared immoral."--Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.
And also, how that old saying goes, "If..."
I know that they're still people. Heck, I have family like this. But you're starting to associate every person that has same sex attraction with gay marriage, which doesn't make sense. People who are attracted to the same sex and people who want to marry the same sex are are not to be confused with each other. There are many "gay" people out there who have married heterosexual. And yes, it's possible. Sure, there are gays who want to marry gay, but that's not all 100% of those people. Gay MARRIAGE is immoral, gay PEOPLE aren't. It's different, and you're treating it the same, which is your first mistake. To you, that's why it sounds like I'm condemning gay PEOPLE when I'm only talking about the MARRIAGE. You must learn to separate the two. And trust me, traditional marriage gets a lot of crap now because of the gay marriage stuff going on. I know people that are so against traditional marriage and so for gay marriage that they won't even attend my sister's baptism. Big families are getting crap also. People look at my family in the store and stare at us.
Second, about the religion thing, I will not "put my religion aside." My religion is a very big part of me. My religion is my logic. My logic is my religion. One cannot live without the other. So if it bothers you, just live with it.
We can argue (ahem, sorry, debate) all we want, but I can tell you this: My opinion will never change.
Now I understand what your saying Allison. I know your opinion will never change but God also says do not judge.
I totally understand where you're coming from Allison. I am a Christian too.
Randomfreckles wrote: "Now I understand what your saying Allison. I know your opinion will never change but God also says do not judge."I'm not judging gay people. I am simply stating what I believe in immoral; which is gay marriage, not gay people. No where up there did I judge gay people.
Okay. I understand now. Sorry
Allison ~God's NOT dead~ wrote: "Natalie wrote: "Allison ~God's NOT dead~ wrote: ""Man's laws cannot make moral what God has declared immoral."--Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.
And also, how that old ..."
So... you're saying instead of being happily married, gay people should force themselves into unhappy marriages or not get married to a person the love?
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Last Olympian (other topics)
The Iliad (other topics)
The Blood of Olympus (other topics)
The Mark of Athena (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
The Sword of Summer (other topics)The Last Olympian (other topics)
The Iliad (other topics)
The Blood of Olympus (other topics)
The Mark of Athena (other topics)
More...
In the first place, the root principle of birth-control is unsound. It is a glorification of the means and a contempt of the end; it says that the pleasure which is a means to the procreation of children is good, but the children themselves are no good. In other words, to be logical, the philosophy of birth-control would commit us to a world in which trees were always blooming but never giving fruit, a world full of sign-posts that were leading nowhere.
(It's unreliable anyway. But the last thing it is is an argument.)