The problem with "domestic partnership"Follow

There's nothing wrong with letting the government legislate morality. You'd be more respectable (to me at any rate) if you advocated banning the practice of homosexual sex outright, rather than occupy some strange in-between zone where you tolerate purportedly evil behavior. Take a stand and try to get it outlawed, if that's really what you believe.

Isn't that what you are doing?

You seem hell bent that the gays are the main source of HIV infections. For the sake of argument, let's say you are absolutely right. The gay agenda is henceforth amended to support AIDs.

Now that we have that out of the way, what the hell does it matter to you? You speak of Christian beliefs and the trinity and such, but you forget that your very Bible tells you a couple of things.

Firstly, everyone is a child of God and to love everyone the same way Jesus loved you without even knowing who you are. You seem to not be doing that with you condemning a whole community.

It also says that all sins weigh the same, iirc. This would mean that if acts that are against God doesn't come without punishment (ie, your argument on the decrease of immunity on gays and the henceforth coming of AIDs) you are probably going to get herpes if you enjoy getting your **** sucked. Oh, and your wife will get cervical cancer since I'm sure she would enjoy offering her cnut as a buffet to you.

You are hell bent on judging gays as sinners but omit your own sins which have the same weight as gay activity. You also seem to forget that it's not your place to judge any other of God's children as the only one to judge and condemn is God himself.

I suggest double checking this Bible thing you like referring to. Much like how you don't fully read any of the links both posted by you and other posters, I believe you haven't actually read the good book either.

Honestly when you look up and see that ******* being eternally gored and dismembered on the teeth of satans second head, I bet you'd be pretty damn thankful to only be stuck in absolute zero temperature ice for all of eternity.

Yes.



You didn't actually read the rest of my post other than the part I quoted which contained what you wrote, I imagine, since it's impossible for you to have read my whole post that quickly and this is the best you can do to a rebuttal.

Doesn't one you win if you forgo material wealth and judge people have pearly gates, streets paved in gold, crowns that show how awesome you were in life, and huge mansions to live in? And doesn't the other one have really hot, sandy beaches, a guy with a pitchfork, and some torture or something?

Of course... you'd have to actually believe in them to care either way which one is which. And given how some of the "christians" act around these parts (which includes your parts, by the way) I'd say that it's hard to tell the difference between "heaven" and "hell."

Inferno? etc.etc.

I'm joking but seriously, there are some hells out there that I wouldn't be so fearful of attending. At it's most fluffy, hell's just the absence of God. I can totally dig that.



Why? Even by the most charitable standards, grace is never something that you can go from lacking to having, certainly not by anything that you can do. It's not their decision; why blame them for it?

Edited, May 4th 2009 2:52pm by Pensive

Not according to YOUR arguments. According the arguments you've put forth here, being homosexual automatically equates to being a disease-carrier.

Make up your mind.