If gays could married, guess what is next!!!

[JTFenthusiast2]

Muman,

After my other posts on this forum, do I seem like a person with below average intelligence?  

Your posts, including this last one, have nothing to do with my earlier point which was again re: the analogizing of homosexuality with other forms of deviant behavior, specifically beastiality.

I envision that the sickos will press for marriage with animals... And legalized bestiality... Why not? Without Torah there is no ethics.

If you don't want to address my initial points clearly, succinctly, fairly, that's your prerogative.  However, don't portray me as not having understood what is entirely self-evident from your initial posting under this thread, and then your first response to my criticism.

[The One and Only Mo]

Look, from a pure religious standpoint, be it Judaism, Christianity, and as far as I know, Killslam, homosexuality is forbidden. Before this thread goes any further, I just wanted to point out the longer society goes with accepting homosexual marriage, which we'll call x, the greater the chances they will allow something worse, we'll call that y. Once they allow y, it will lead to a world where z will be accepted and so forth. If the rules of the Torah, Old/New Testament, and other religions are continuously broken, one can only imagine that the madness will not stop here.

[muman613]

Muman,

After my other posts on this forum, do I seem like a person with below average intelligence?  

Your posts, including this last one, have nothing to do with my earlier point which was again re: the analogizing of homosexuality with other forms of deviant behavior, specifically beastiality.

I envision that the sickos will press for marriage with animals... And legalized bestiality... Why not? Without Torah there is no ethics.

If you don't want to address my initial points clearly, succinctly, fairly, that's your prerogative.  However, don't portray me as not having understood what is entirely self-evident from your initial posting under this thread, and then your first response to my criticism.

I think I was misunderstood when I said 'sickos'... I was not referring to the gays as 'sickos' but actually I was referring to those who want to legalize marriage to animals, and having sexual relations with them. But aside from that I don't really understand what you disagree about concerning what I posted. You think that readers would think that I am a bigot and close-minded? If this is so, I apoligize. I was just being short and to the point about what I thought. Im sorry if it did not communicate effectively...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human-animal_marriage

Human-animal marriage, i.e., marriage between humans and non-human animals, is not recognized in law by any country at present, although historically people have married animals as part of religious traditions or to bring good luck, often involving elaborate ceremonies. Such marriages as are allowed by tradition, or within a culture, are often symbolic or ritual, rather than the more usual recognition of a relationship.

Horse
    * In some parts of Celtic Ireland, kings (often called "sacred kings") had to wed the local goddess of the land. A druidess was usually chosen to represent the land goddess as the king's wife, but one king in Donegal married a horse, a representative of their local goddess. [1]

Dog
    * June 2003 - a nine year old Indian girl of the Santal (or 'Santhal') tribe of Khanyhan, near Calcutta was formally married to a dog, in order to ward off a bad omen. The wedding was attended by more than one hundred guests, who danced to the beating of drums and drank home-made liquor. The girl told Western press, "I have no regret in marrying the dog Bacchan. I am fond of the dog who moves around our locality," and tribal elders added she was free to remarry in future as an adult. [3]

Dolphin
    * December 2005 - forty-one-year-old Sharon Tendler of Great Britain unofficially married Cindy, a male dolphin held at the Dolphin Reef dolphinarium in Eilat, Israel, in a ceremony where she offered fish and the dolphin 'kissed' her. She had been visiting Cindy regularly for the past fifteen years. Tendler requested permission from the dolphin's trainer for the "wedding". The marriage, painted romantically by the media, was in her words considered "a bit of fun" after her friends joked about her being single at that age.

[JTFenthusiast2]

Mo,

Your response has nothing to do with my criticism.  I wasn't even beginning to think of anything about so called gay marriage. 

I'm really disappointed with the lack of personal responsibility and the frank disingenuity with which some of you chose to handle this.  Instead of being honest, you compounded the sin by being deceitful.  For those of you who like to judge as if you are sitting at the right hand of God, I wonder what he will have to say about that kind of behavior.  Next time, you cast the first stone, chew on that.

[The One and Only Mo]

Mo,

Your response has nothing to do with my criticism.  I wasn't even beginning to think of anything about so called gay marriage. 

I'm really disappointed with the lack of personal responsibility and the frank disingenuity with which some of you chose to handle this.  Instead of being honest, you compounded the sin by being deceitful.  For those of you who like to judge as if you are sitting at the right hand of G-d, I wonder what he will have to say about that kind of behavior.  Next time, you cast the first stone, chew on that.

So is your issue here with the criticism of gay (marriage)?

[Secularbeliever]

I think a clear distinction needs to be drawn between tolerance for homosexuality which I think is almost universally accepted by Americans and sanctioning or endorsing homosexuality which is the plan of the gay lobby and the left.  It is one thing to say that I don't want to pay policemen to break into someone's home or even into a bar to look for and arrest people engaging in homosexuality.  It is another to say that I want to officially sanction homosexuality as equal to heterosexuality by legally sanctioning gay marraige.  I think gay people would do well to settle for tolerance because I think most people don't want to go the sanctioning route.

I agree with JTF2 that there is meanness and immaturity on these boards in discussing the issue.  I don't think it is helpful to refer to them as faggots, to pretend that they can just be converted to heterosexuality, or to claim they chose for evil purposes to adopt this lifestyle.   I have met many homosexuals and there are some in my immediate family.  I know them well enough to know that they did not choose their orientation.  They spent their adolescences and young adulthoods trying to be straight.  They found it very painful to come to grips with the fact that they are homosexuals. 

I honestly don't have a good answer for their situation.  I don't think religions have an answer for them.  Real religions just call them sinners while pseudo religions sanction them and make them Rabbis and Priests.  I don't think either is an answer but I don't have one either. 

[Rubystars]

I don't think gay people choose to be gay the vast majority of the time. I think they can't help feeling the temptation. It's acting on it that's the problem.

[muman613]

I did not see anyone call them faggots in this thread. Nor did I see anyone say that they are evil. What I said is that without moral codes there is nothing which is not permitted. And I believe that many of them do choose to be the way they are, because they are fooled into believing that by the media. When it is acceptable to act in this fashion it encourages very immoral behavior by many innocent people. Some are seduced into it by friends and since the media and gay agenda has tried to make it more acceptable.

I do not hate anyone for their dispositions. But I will not stand by and say that it is acceptable. Everyone has temptations and urges and challenges that they deal with. Hopefully by the end of a persons life they will have acted in a mostly ethical and moral way. We must stand against making it more acceptable. Civil unions are a good compromise. But I still stand against having homosexual marriage.

[Secularbeliever]

I did not see anyone call them faggots in this thread. Nor did I see anyone say that they are evil. What I said is that without moral codes there is nothing which is not permitted. And I believe that many of them do choose to be the way they are, because they are fooled into believing that by the media. When it is acceptable to act in this fashion it encourages very immoral behavior by many innocent people. Some are seduced into it by friends and since the media and gay agenda has tried to make it more acceptable
I do not hate anyone for their dispositions. But I will not stand by and say that it is acceptable. Everyone has temptations and urges and challenges that they deal with. Hopefully by the end of a persons life they will have acted in a mostly ethical and moral way. We must stand against making it more acceptable. Civil unions are a good compromise. But I still stand against having homosexual marriage..

Muman, you are correct that faggot and evil were not used on this thread but have shown up many times on threads on JTF.  As it turns out we are pretty close to agreement on most aspects of the issue (we both oppose homesexual marriage but oppose persecuting homosexuals) except that I think it is unrealistic to think that abstinence is more than an abstract idea that has no chance of being widely accepted.  Homosexuality has existed throughout history.  It is often widely practiced by those most opposed to it (J Edgar Hoover, many of the Nazis, many of the Taliban). 

[muman613]

I did not see anyone call them faggots in this thread. Nor did I see anyone say that they are evil. What I said is that without moral codes there is nothing which is not permitted. And I believe that many of them do choose to be the way they are, because they are fooled into believing that by the media. When it is acceptable to act in this fashion it encourages very immoral behavior by many innocent people. Some are seduced into it by friends and since the media and gay agenda has tried to make it more acceptable
I do not hate anyone for their dispositions. But I will not stand by and say that it is acceptable. Everyone has temptations and urges and challenges that they deal with. Hopefully by the end of a persons life they will have acted in a mostly ethical and moral way. We must stand against making it more acceptable. Civil unions are a good compromise. But I still stand against having homosexual marriage..

Muman, you are correct that faggot and evil were not used on this thread but have shown up many times on threads on JTF.  As it turns out we are pretty close to agreement on most aspects of the issue (we both oppose homesexual marriage but oppose persecuting homosexuals) except that I think it is unrealistic to think that abstinence is more than an abstract idea that has no chance of being widely accepted.  Homosexuality has existed throughout history.  It is often widely practiced by those most opposed to it (J Edgar Hoover, many of the Nazis, many of the Taliban). 

Yes it was accepted by much of the world before Judaism and Christianity were accepted. But I believe that is part of the reason we should attempt to reduce the amount of public homosexuality. Any sexual immorality is against the Torah, and the laws of the Bible have been what morality is judged by. The point you make about some of the people most against it doesn't negate the fact that it is wrong.

I doubt you attempt to eat Kosher. But for me it is a constant temptation to eat things which are not kosher. I dont have any desire for pork, but it is so tempting the smell of bacon and pork ribs. I am able to restrain myself from eating these things. I also restrain myself from doing things on Shabbat, a day which presents many challenges for someone like me. If I am able to restrain myself from these things I believe anyone can be in control of themselves.

[Lisa]

Hi everyone,

I can understand how straight men are squeamish about male homosexuality.  I feel the same way when I look at Ellen De Generes.

On the other hand, I went to college in Manhattan.  I knew plenty of young gay men, as I used to hang out with the artsy crowd. One thing I've always heard from them was how they knew they were different, from a *very* young age.  It's not like they woke up one day and decided to sleep with a man just to spite their parents.

Now I've heard people say that these men should try and change.  But I disagree.  Would any of you want your sisters or your female relatives to marry a man who has to force himself to be attracted to females?  It's wrong to do that to any woman.  

But anyway, the topic Mo2388 brought up was gay *marriage.*  I believe most JTF'ers are against it for religious reasons.  But I think what is also bothering people here is how the left is hell bent on shoving it down people's throats through judicial fiat.  From what I've seen, most Americans vote against gay marriage.  They believe marriage to be for a man and a woman only.  However, these people are being overruled by a dictatorship of leftist judges who view our constitution as a "living document."

As I see it, marriage is by definition, a religious ceremony.   For the world's main religions, the purpose is for a man and woman to build a home together, and eventually a family.  And no religion, as far as I know, condones homosexual relations.  (With Islam, only the person on the receiving end is considered homosexual.) So if gay marriage is legalized, that would mean rabbis, ministers, and other religious clergy would be forced to perform these ceremonies, which would be a violation of *their* religious beliefs.  

Buy anyway, let's try and keep our language clean.  

[syyuge]

In the end, every such city will be treated like Gomorrah.

[Secularbeliever]

I did not see anyone call them faggots in this thread. Nor did I see anyone say that they are evil. What I said is that without moral codes there is nothing which is not permitted. And I believe that many of them do choose to be the way they are, because they are fooled into believing that by the media. When it is acceptable to act in this fashion it encourages very immoral behavior by many innocent people. Some are seduced into it by friends and since the media and gay agenda has tried to make it more acceptable
I do not hate anyone for their dispositions. But I will not stand by and say that it is acceptable. Everyone has temptations and urges and challenges that they deal with. Hopefully by the end of a persons life they will have acted in a mostly ethical and moral way. We must stand against making it more acceptable. Civil unions are a good compromise. But I still stand against having homosexual marriage..

Muman, you are correct that faggot and evil were not used on this thread but have shown up many times on threads on JTF.  As it turns out we are pretty close to agreement on most aspects of the issue (we both oppose homesexual marriage but oppose persecuting homosexuals) except that I think it is unrealistic to think that abstinence is more than an abstract idea that has no chance of being widely accepted.  Homosexuality has existed throughout history.  It is often widely practiced by those most opposed to it (J Edgar Hoover, many of the Nazis, many of the Taliban). 

Yes it was accepted by much of the world before Judaism and Christianity were accepted. But I believe that is part of the reason we should attempt to reduce the amount of public homosexuality. Any sexual immorality is against the Torah, and the laws of the Bible have been what morality is judged by. The point you make about some of the people most against it doesn't negate the fact that it is wrong.

I doubt you attempt to eat Kosher. But for me it is a constant temptation to eat things which are not kosher. I dont have any desire for pork, but it is so tempting the smell of bacon and pork ribs. I am able to restrain myself from eating these things. I also restrain myself from doing things on Shabbat, a day which presents many challenges for someone like me. If I am able to restrain myself from these things I believe anyone can be in control of themselves.

I am not strictly kosher but I do refrain from eating pig products, shellfish, and from mixing meat and milk.  That is a very minor inconvenience compared to a life of abstinence.  I am not even sure abstinence works well for society.  All of those molesting Priests were officially practicing abstinence.  Driving things underground has at best a mixed record of benefiting society.

[Secularbeliever]

Hi everyone,

I can understand how straight men are squeamish about male homosexuality.  I feel the same way when I look at Ellen De Generes.

On the other hand, I went to college in Manhattan.  I knew plenty of young gay men, as I used to hang out with the artsy crowd. One thing I've always heard from them was how they knew they were different, from a *very* young age.  It's not like they woke up one day and decided to sleep with a man just to spite their parents.

Now I've heard people say that these men should try and change.  But I disagree.  Would any of you want your sisters or your female relatives to marry a man who has to force himself to be attracted to females?  It's wrong to do that to any woman.  

But anyway, the topic Mo2388 brought up was gay *marriage.*  I believe most JTF'ers are against it for religious reasons.  But I think what is also bothering people here is how the left is hell bent on shoving it down people's throats through judicial fiat.  From what I've seen, most Americans vote against gay marriage.  They believe marriage to be for a man and a woman only.  However, these people are being overruled by a dictatorship of leftist judges who view our constitution as a "living document."

As I see it, marriage is by definition, a religious ceremony.   For the world's main religions, the purpose is for a man and woman to build a home together, and eventually a family.  And no religion, as far as I know, condones homosexual relations.  (With Islam, only the person on the receiving end is considered homosexual.) So if gay marriage is legalized, that would mean rabbis, ministers, and other religious clergy would be forced to perform these ceremonies, which would be a violation of *their* religious beliefs.  

Buy anyway, let's try and keep our language clean.  

I agree with everything you say except that marriage does not have to be a religious ceremony you can get married in a civil ceremony.  Still I think society has every right to say that marriage is sanctioned by society as a union between one man and one woman because society has a stake in such unions.  I think gay people should be able to live comfortably but I don't think they have a right to demand that they be recognized as on the same level as heterosexual couples.

I have made the same point about the futility of "converting" gays.