Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

It is. US culture is slowly being taken over by rap/hip-hop/crap. The music glorifies sex, drinking, drugs, violence, ect. The dance that is popuar in states is called "grinding". It involves a man ginding his gentailla on a woman's rear end. I don't like it, but I am not going to go out and try to stop it. I can simply look away and think about other things.

Maybe it has something to do with the devil and sin. You only have one life to live, have fun with it. If fun is meat in poopchute, then enjoy it. If it is a sin, you will just have to spend 10,000 years in purgatory like the rest of us:p

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Mature. Perhaps you should return to this debate when your mental age exceeds 13.

By that logic, infertile people shouldn't be permitted to get married. But they are. Therein lies the fatal flaw in Christianity: It's a load of old shit.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Exactly.

Even if he was, it would not matter. It does not in any way make his arguments less sound.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

For the record, I'm not, which only serves to make my argument stronger, as I prove it's possible to support a group without being one of them.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

I hope you did read the FAQ when you got here. And the same goes for ANZACSAS. You can make your point too if you didn't say fuck every single time.
Keep it civil and peacefull around here.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

But they tended to keep it secret, rather than run around the place demanding rights for other people like them. And also, a Roman's sense of duty was far in excess of any semblance of patriotism that we have now - they truly believed that they, and their nation, were rightfully masters of the world, and were willing to do anything to achieve for themselves and their kingdom/republic/empire the best outcome possible, even if it meant being party to that sort of thing. It didnt mean they were gay.

And by the way, it is reported by Julius Caesar's biographer, Suetonius, that Caesar participated in sex with Nicomedes the fourth, of Bithynia to ensure the control of Bithynia passed to Rome. Caesar's enemies often used that as an allegation later on in his political career. However, it is something that Caesar vigorously denied all his life.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

In all fairness, Mr. Super Moderator, he did call me gay.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

*i think he is a she but yes to be fair she did call him gay.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

I’d be careful with a comment like that, because by that logic you’d be affirming a lot more than your opinion on homosexuals.

And being a different sexual orientation isn't? It's a human characteristic, just like race.

Being homosexual, being black, whatever: it's all natural. It occurs naturally. Or at least it isn't a choice (in most cases - pertaining to both examples). "Normal" is how prevalent it is in society. Saying that "because something isn't as prevalent in society means it's a bad thing" is ridiculous: that's like me saying that being Asian is bad because there aren't many Asian families in my district.

Hmm. I tihnk you've yet to make a real argument. A real argument is comprised of facts and logic, and all you've done is use nasty adjectives and generalized anecdote to cushion a simplistic opinion that homosexuality is "vile".

Maybe you could enlighten us all and share your reasoning, because I'm certainly interested in knowing.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

The biggest problem homosexuals have, is the church, everything else is surmountable by logic, except the church, which contains little to no logic at all. In some cases the religious front is moving their ‘backing’ to better suit their ideology that homosexuality is the work of the devil. This movement is highlighted in the case below:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061218/ap_on_re_us/episcopalians_split_14