When I hear the word 'gay' I immediately think of...

What I suck is not relevant to the debate.

You said and asked: “OK, so let's say two bisexual women want to get married. Do they have to marry the same man, or can they choose different men? If these men are bisexual, do they get to bring more men into the marriage, who in turn could bring more women?”

Nothing was dismantled by those questions as we are talking about marriage, which your questions clearly indicate you do not understand what it is.

If two bisexual women want to get married, and do not care to marry a man, they get married. Holy Matrimony is “one flesh,” not several fleshes doing what they want. Each and every one of them is married to who is in the marriage and must consent. If two bisexual women marry two bisexual men, there is no problem; all it does is make for interesting daisy chains; all must be able to fulfill their destiny for the word “destiny” of Lawrence v. Texas to have meaning and it not be based upon hypocrisy.

 

First, you don't get to use the words "Holy Matrimony". The only thing gay marriage in America can EVER be is a state matter. You will be wrong forever as far as holiness is concerned. Second, you say I don't understand what marriage is, but you think it's some kind of orgy, filled with "interesting daisy chains". And you have the nerve to use the word holy. And as far as Lawrence v Texas is concerned, it already IS based on hypocrisy. It was a bad decision based on faulty reasoning. Reasoning which the court does not use in other cases, making it hypocritical. For as Justice Scalia (joined by Rehnquist and Thomas) noted in his dissenting opinion, the same rationale used in Lawrence v Texas (overturning a previous ruling) could have been used to overturn Roe v. Wade, which the Justices in the majority in Lawrence had recently upheld. It's all liberal hypocrisy.

 

I usually think of effiminate men, and lisping, too, but not weak men. I also associate the word with lame or stupid, too, because it is so frequently used that way by my generation. I've recently made a conscious effort to stop using it that way.

You shouldn't really care because no matter how fair you try to be, someone's always going to think your a bigot toward some group. I mean, I totally support equal rights for homosexuals, but I'm also not afraid to admit that I think homosexuality is disgusting. Some gays find that offensive, and stil say I'm a bigot, even though I'm support their equal rights.

 

If I remember correctly there were some churches in the land of fruits and nuts that were willing to marry them; basically a “you don’t get to use” something phrase fits the definition of Bigotry. The words “Holy Matrimony” would seem to be a State matter, as the Congress is not supposed to establish religion for them, but just like when the Supreme Court said Gays were not an abomination to be hunted down if the Supreme Court ruled that all States must accept such Gay contracts then that is that; the Supreme Court is pretty much establishing religion when it protects Gays from the Koran and Old Testament Bible thumpers; some states though have a little problem with an amendment that looks just like the first, meaning religious freedom (see those churches), but some have a “but” about “lasciviousness” which it looks like New York just got rid of a while back. The word “unholy” would seem to come into play should We the People then tear them apart after having given them a marriage rite, as it would seem to fit being dishonorable to our word. Our word in such respects should be holy.

If the Constitution is taken as it is worded for the District (DC), which is not supposed to be a State for a reason, marriage is something other than a State matter; I don’t know squat about military marriages. There is no guarantee that States will not be reduced to picking State flowers; and if any one flower would sprout anywhere I bet they might name it “The ObamaCare Rose” and force it on all States.

I cannot speak for God; in my opinion, and that of my dictionary, matrimony is only between a man and a woman, but my dictionary allows for the word “marriage” to have other senses probably because of the unholy Koran and marriage to war booty.

With a fixed set of combinations marriage is still safer than them running around burning in lust spreading a fruit loop virus and screwing everyone else’s destiny up at the dentist (where stupidity as a virtue made “no reported case” a science).

 

Fred Flintstone.

 

When I said a state matter, I was referring to state in the governmental sense, not as in "State vs. Federal". Something federally mandated is still a matter of state (like we have a national Secretary of State). The distinction was between government and religion (i.e. church and state). No governmental contract is "holy". That is the point. And any church that will marry gays is apostate, so that doesn't count. They are not holy either.

Then what are we arguing about?

I have no idea what you are saying here. The dentist?

 

So who exactly determines what is “apostate” or “holy,” would that be the gubermint approved Holy Interpreter of the Book?

Dentist? (search “Kimberly Bergalis”) or just “AIDS dentist” it pops right to the top. Obviously if you are not old enough to remember “no reported case” being CDC science, you wouldn’t remember the video of the flight attendant on the New York to San Francisco route, with the new gay disease when it was NOT called AIDS, telling his doctor he was not going to stop going to the bathhouses, back when Holy quarantine was shouted down when there were less than 10,000 known cases, or the Robert Downey Jr. show where the Homos were defending their promiscuous lifestyle.

“So the plague was stopped among the children of Israel. 9 And those who died in the plague were twenty-four thousand.” (Numbers 25: 8-9)

Marriage is just a form of quarantine. What makes it holy is what it stops.

Since it is better to marry than burn in lust spreading a fruit-loop virus, therefore, LGBT marriage is holier than a plague.

 

Weird poll, and odd options.

If it was word association, my answer would be 'homosexual'.

That is what 'gay' would mean to me today.

 

Is it impossible for you to speak in plain English? Who are you referring to now? The pope (not government approved)? The Supreme Court (doesn't interpret bible)? Obviously government approval has nothing to do with it. But a sexual relationship forbidden by the bible can in no way be holy in a Christian sense. Any sane person can see that.

OK then. I guess I missed when Robert Downey Jr. had a TV show. So how exactly is gay marriage supposed to keep you safe from AIDS at the dentist? And what makes you think that the possibility of marriage will stop gay promiscuity? After all, nothing is preventing gays from making vows to each other now, without government involvement. And those LGBTPTQXR people who want to remain promiscuous will remain so. Nothing is forcing them to get married. So the quarantine idea is completely bogus. Legalizing gay marriage will do nothing in that regard.

 

Maybe they think that because Paul condoned slavery and said women must "cover their head" in church and never be ordained, that his views on Homosexuality must also be considered fallible?

 

That's just stupid. Paul was right about those other things, too. And it's not as if Paul invented the prohibition on gay marriage. Like Jesus, Paul just didn't overturn it. For thousands of years before, and since, it was accepted by all those who worship the God of Abraham.

 

Paul was right on slavery?... Uh....

And is any church that ordains women and/or doesn't require them to remain silent in church and cover their heads apostate?

 

Perhaps you would feel better if he had urged slaves to take the Spartacus route and get themselves killed? Slavery was a fact of the ancient world. You need to put it in context. NO ancient writer questioned it. What Paul did was to urge masters to treat their slaves fairly, and for slaves to do that which would pragmatically make their lives better, all the while recognizing that the world was an evil place and true fairness will never be achieved in this realm. Just like Jesus said, "the poor will be with you always". That is not an endorsement of starving to death, it is an acknowledgement of the reality of the world..

Yep.

 

I am with the 38%. My deceased sister's middle name was Gay. She never had a problem with it until gays came out. I always loved her middle name and that's what I think about.

I never used the term gay as in "that's gay". My kids used to.

We used the word gay as being happy. Being 57, I think you that are in my age bracket might know what I mean.

I am tolerarant of gay people but honestly, it kind of bothers me to see two men together. I don't know why. Maybe because I am a female that is heterosexual. I just tolerate it and don't judge them.

 

Are you going to have the Holy Gubermint Inquisitor of the Christian Church establish that the Golden Rule takes a back seat to Paul?

When ignoring everything in the Old Testament, and only sticking with what Jesus is reported to have said, ignoring Paul…there is nothing to prevent marriage as the tool it was intended to be when Jesus said it is better to marry than burn in lust; the same logic with regard to “lust” applies to all. So then we are left with whether Homosexual behavior itself is allowable, and we cannot escape the fact that the Gubermint has approved it. Since the behavior is allowable, therefore, the logic of “it is better to marry than burn in lust” becomes a logical extension of the Golden Rule, consequently, doing unto others as we would have them do unto us by giving them the rights that help to bind us away from lust so to for them.

When people swear vows there are consequences, often just economic, that help slightly to prevent breaking those vows. Marriage is better than lust. If one person keeps the vows that is one less person giving someone else a fruit-loop virus, the odds then are reduced. Marriage in this sense is a carrot dangled in front of the mutant to keep it holier.

 

So virtually every church is Apostate? The Catholic church doesn't require women to do that and they can definitely speak in church. In fact the existence of nuns is probably against the rules Paul set out.

 

And interesting that you simply dismiss Paul's views on slavery as a "reality of the modern world". I thought the truth never changed? If The Bible is 100% the word of God then Paul's views are timeless. If slavery were immoral as nearly every Christian believes today, then he would have said so.

 

Of course virtually every church is apostate. There are an infinite number of ways to be wrong, and only one way to be right. For the first 1000 years of Christianity, there was only one Christian church- the true chuch. The very existence of a multitude of churches with varying beliefs means that there is a lot of apostasy. It is extremely closed-minded to view 2000 years of history exclusively through the lens of post feminism, post sexual revolution modern society. So you are probably wondering, who then is this "original church" today? The Orthodox church. They are called the Orthodox because, you guessed it, they are orthodox in their teachings. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/orthodox?s=t

 

Actually, that would be a reality of the ancient world. Paul did not say that it was right or wrong. He merely acknowledged what was. Paul was busy kick-starting a new church. Trying to start a social revolution about slavery would have been a distraction. Slavery is a temporal thing, and Paul was concentrating on the eternal. Owning a slave will not cost one his soul.

 

The word "gay" went from meaning happy, then homosexual, and now among my generation, it's used as an insult regardless of sexual orientation (ex. "that's so gay")

 

The words of Paul are the words of Paul, and the words of Jesus should be considered greater than the words of Paul; when in doubt Jesus did not say consult the book, or read any one thing, the book itself says he said, “ask,” and he did not mean ask Paul. The concept that each and every person may pray to “Our Father,” disavows the underpinnings of Monarchy, Slavery, or any form of such discrimination in favor of “special” people. Slavery does not fit with the Golden Rule and neither does Monarchy or with consulting with the dictator Paul.

Whether or not we give rights for Gays and Bisexuals to marry (considering Gay bigots), has mostly to do with our heart, not our Pauline dogma. A Christian might as well claim the Koran is holy, if any book is more holy than the heart or logic of the Golden Rule.

“Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?”

“You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Then he basically borrowing from Hamlet said, “Now go sell yourself into slavery and give up your monarchy…as your prayers fly up and your thoughts remain below to keeping love of yourself has higher than the love of others.”

One cannot love a slave or subject as they love themselves without giving them equality, which ends slavery and ends monarchy.

Since no dictator can be a Christian, therefore, no book can be a Christian dictator.

If I do not want them to die, then I want what I know is better for life; let them marry.

 

Upon further consideration, it occurs to me that Paul could not have spoken again slavery as being "against God's way" for exactly the reason that you state: the bible must contain timeless truth that never changes. In what many consider to be the oldest book of the bible, Job, Yahweh himself seems to put his stamp of approval on the institution of slavery. First, He allows Satan to slaughter Job's slaves. THEN, he gives Job recompense (brand new slaves). For Paul to speak against slavery, he would have had to contradist existing scripture.

 

Even with the 'something else' -option? Homosexuality and jolliness were the only things that popped into MY head and both came up because they're synonyms to 'gayness' in either the ancient world (jolliness) or the modern world (homosexuality).

 

Soon gays would not want themselves to be refer or called gay because it is a derogatory comment or term.

 

Basically because anti-gay people will use any word associated with homosexuality in a derogatory manner.