Gay/Lesbian Marriages

OT na tayo! Bukas kayo ng ibang thread tungkol dyan...

Actually, Judas was a hottie and had an astig attitude. May mga gays na mahilig ng ganyang type. Pero hindi yaan ang type ni Jesus. He actually liked ang mga John the Beloved na type, medyo younger and innocent looking.

Element is right. My tweet reporters told me that Lazarus was it. Hmmm, interesting, isn't it. The greatest miracle of Jesus -- the raising of Lazarus -- was an act of romantic love! Compared to this death-defying love, the story of David and Jonathan was an ordinary soap opera. Who says that the Bible is not a compilation of love stories? And truly the story of Lazarus gives an added twist to the gay-speak na si Jesus pala ay nakakabuhay ng patay, he he he. Unlike the rest of the Bible where love and sex were graphically described, the Gospels are a cleaned-out edited version, but I will tease out some details that the careless editors of the ancient times have missed. You will see the story of Lazarus and his lesbian sisters in my debate (oops, I am getting ahead na of my story, ha ha ha ha).

Ooops! sorry, Vril. Sige na nga wag muna itong topic ni Jesus-Lazarus.

And truly the story of Lazarus gives an added twist to the gay-speak na si Jesus pala ay nakakabuhay ng patay

may bagung tawag jan pre.. BEKIMON hahaha ^_^

check mu nalang mga search strings sa youtube lols ^_^

===================

anyways back to the topic.. Okie lang naman na magkaron ng gay marriage, actually since australian yung clients namin weh madami na din kaming nakausap na mga gay couples.. usually mga divorcees at medyu majojonda na yung couples (say 40-50 age group) lols

anyways okie naman sila and they are not ashamed to admit it.. their country is much more liberal unlike of ours who has so much bragaddocio and the macho-effect types.

but still in my experience... BISEXUAL women are milk and honey. dont ask me how i gotten to know.. but that was real kinky and crazzzyyyyy ^_^

We want to know the differing opinions regarding gay/lesbian marriage. Obviously some cited that god is against it so they dont favor it. The big question is Why did god create gays/lesbians in the first place? If god did not create these people..who did? It has been established by science that being gay or lesbian is not a choice. Human sexual orientation is genetically influenced and starts even before they are born.

Any thoughts?

sakundes wrote:

may bagung tawag jan pre.. BEKIMON hahaha ^_^

check mu nalang mga search strings sa youtube lols ^_^

===================

anyways back to the topic.. Okie lang naman na magkaron ng gay marriage, actually since australian yung clients namin weh madami na din kaming nakausap na mga gay couples.. usually mga divorcees at medyu majojonda na yung couples (say 40-50 age group) lols

anyways okie naman sila and they are not ashamed to admit it.. their country is much more liberal unlike of ours who has so much bragaddocio and the macho-effect types.

but still in my experience... BISEXUAL women are milk and honey. dont ask me how i gotten to know.. but that was real kinky and crazzzyyyyy ^_^

How's that? Milk on top, honey down below? yummy! Ay... hehe.

vril wrote:We want to know the differing opinions regarding gay/lesbian marriage. Obviously some cited that god is against it so they dont favor it. The big question is Why did god create gays/lesbians in the first place? If god did not create these people..who did? It has been established by science that being gay or lesbian is not a choice. Human sexual orientation is genetically influenced and starts even before they are born.

Any thoughts?

Yes, i agree. Even as kids, the features (both physiognomical and movements-wise) already shows. But of course this is not a majority case, but significant nonetheless. Just look at Fanny Serrano. No amount of being 'born again' can hide the fact of his orientation from his physical appearance.

We want to know the differing opinions regarding gay/lesbian marriage. Obviously some cited that god is against it so they dont favor it. The big question is Why did god create gays/lesbians in the first place? If god did not create these people..who did? It has been established by science that being gay or lesbian is not a choice. Human sexual orientation is genetically influenced and starts even before they are born.

Any thoughts?

whatever happened to god's divine plan? if it was so omniscient then it should have known what to happen in the future when it made this so-called plan. besides, isnt it that many priests and theists tells us that god has plans for each and everyone of us.. how does being gay/lesbo apply to this so-called plan?

if everything that is happening is according to this divine plan.. then i can tell you for sure that this tsk. tsk. tigas ng ulo mo you call a god is nothing more than a disgrunted office temp.. you just need to look at cable news to realize that there is/are something wrong in this world.. is this what they call the perfect plan?

beats me ^_^


===============

there are things you can only learn thru emulation or vicariousness lols ^_^

(tama ba grammaring ko? lols ^_^)

I think that this issue can be made short cut by clarifying this basic point.

If you are asking about people's opinion and that the criterion for judging is based on the majority vote, then the NO answer prevails because majority of the people of the world belong to a religion and no religion allows marriage of the same sex except may be satanism.

So how are you gonna treat/decide this matter?


Thanks

Jewel wrote:I think that this issue can be made short cut by clarifying this basic point.

If you are asking about people's opinion and that the criterion for judging is based on the majority vote, then the NO answer prevails because majority of the people of the world belong to a religion and no religion allows marriage of the same sex except may be satanism.

So how are you gonna treat/decide this matter?


Thanks

Noooo, Jewel, human rights issues are not decided by majority vote but by principles that the society has established to guide them by. For example, religious tolerance or the fact that Muslims are allowed to practice religion in the US is not put to a vote. If it were, then the Evangelical majority could and likely would throw out all Muslims to the sea. The freedom of Muslims to practice religion inthe US is dependent on the Constitution that expressly allows it. It is also based on the UN provision of human rights.

So, in the case of gay marriage, it is the going to be the majority vote who should decide. It should be decided -- and it is being decided -- by the same principles of human rights that I gave as an example earlier. If courts find that gays are deprived of their human rights, then the courts could order the government to give them those rights. It is happening in Argentina, the US, and even in Nepal. In all three cases, the courts made a decision.

To give a related example, the majority of Pinoys did not want Ang Ladlad to hold power. But the Court decided to let it run for election without consulting the majority of the people. The majority of the Pinoy eventually decided not to vote for Ang Ladlad, but the point has already been made that the Court does not need to agree with the majority of the people when human rights are concerned.

Ateo wrote:


Noooo, Jewel, human rights issues are not decided by majority vote but by principles that the society has established to guide them by. For example, religious tolerance or the fact that Muslims are allowed to practice religion in the US is not put to a vote. If it were, then the Evangelical majority could and likely would throw out all Muslims to the sea. The freedom of Muslims to practice religion inthe US is dependent on the Constitution that expressly allows it. It is also based on the UN provision of human rights.

So, in the case of gay marriage, it is the going to be the majority vote who should decide. It should be decided -- and it is being decided -- by the same principles of human rights that I gave as an example earlier. If courts find that gays are deprived of their human rights, then the courts could order the government to give them those rights. It is happening in Argentina, the US, and even in Nepal. In all three cases, the courts made a decision.

To give a related example, the majority of Pinoys did not want Ang Ladlad to hold power. But the Court decided to let it run for election without consulting the majority of the people. The majority of the Pinoy eventually decided not to vote for Ang Ladlad, but the point has already been made that the Court does not need to agree with the majority of the people when human rights are concerned.

agree...it should be based on equal rights...not on majority who despises homosexual act which religionists despises so much.

Ateo wrote:


Noooo, Jewel, human rights issues are not decided by majority vote but by principles that the society has established to guide them by. For example, religious tolerance or the fact that Muslims are allowed to practice religion in the US is not put to a vote. If it were, then the Evangelical majority could and likely would throw out all Muslims to the sea. The freedom of Muslims to practice religion inthe US is dependent on the Constitution that expressly allows it. It is also based on the UN provision of human rights.

So, in the case of gay marriage, it is the going to be the majority vote who should decide. It should be decided -- and it is being decided -- by the same principles of human rights that I gave as an example earlier. If courts find that gays are deprived of their human rights, then the courts could order the government to give them those rights. It is happening in Argentina, the US, and even in Nepal. In all three cases, the courts made a decision...

Are you saying atheistic secular laws are the ones that are keeping our societies sensible?

Ateo wrote:Noooo, Jewel, human rights issues are not decided by majority vote but by principles that the society has established to guide them by. For example, religious tolerance or the fact that Muslims are allowed to practice religion in the US is not put to a vote. If it were, then the Evangelical majority could and likely would throw out all Muslims to the sea. The freedom of Muslims to practice religion inthe US is dependent on the Constitution that expressly allows it. It is also based on the UN provision of human rights.

So, in the case of gay marriage, it is the going to be the majority vote who should decide. It should be decided -- and it is being decided -- by the same principles of human rights that I gave as an example earlier. If courts find that gays are deprived of their human rights, then the courts could order the government to give them those rights. It is happening in Argentina, the US, and even in Nepal. In all three cases, the courts made a decision.

To give a related example, the majority of Pinoys did not want Ang Ladlad to hold power. But the Court decided to let it run for election without consulting the majority of the people. The majority of the Pinoy eventually decided not to vote for Ang Ladlad, but the point has already been made that the Court does not need to agree with the majority of the people when human rights are concerned.

You got me very wrong ateo.

I never said that the issue will be judge based on majority vote. What I said was that if the thread starter wanted to make a survey through people's opinions, then the clear possible result as the answer to the question is NO simply because majority of the people of the world belongs to a religion which doesnt allow these types of marriages.

Whether the people's opinion will be followed or not, that is another topic in and of itself, however the majority opinion would be NO. clear?

Yes! Victory!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100804/pl_yblog_upshot/whats-next-for-the-prop-8-case

No. Panget ng same-sex marriage. Parang wolve in sheep clothing.

Shon wrote:No. Panget ng same-sex marriage. Parang wolve in sheep clothing.

can you back up your statement why you think so.

thanks

vril wrote:

can you back up your statement why you think so.

thanks

[Exodus]
{23:2} You shall not follow the crowd in doing evil. Neither shall you
go astray in judgment, by agreeing with the majority opinion, apart from
the truth.

Esther wrote:

[Exodus]
{23:2} You shall not follow the crowd in doing evil. Neither shall you
go astray in judgment, by agreeing with the majority opinion, apart from
the truth.

What's so evil about same sex unions?

vril wrote:

What's so evil about same sex unions?

There are specific passages that condemn homosexual acts as always gravely immoral.The following passages in the Bible teach definitively that homosexual acts are gravely immoral.
And this condemnation of the acts implies that the orientation toward those acts is a grave disorder.

[Genesis]
{13:13} But the men of Sodom were very wicked, and they were sinners before the Lord beyond measure.

{18:20} And so the Lord said, "The outcry from Sodom and Gomorrah has been multiplied, and their sin has become exceedingly grievous.

{19:4} But before they went to bed, the men of the city surrounded the house, from boys to old men, all the people together.
{19:5} And they called out to Lot, and they said to him: "Where are the men who entered to you in the night? Bring them out here, so that we may know them."

The men of Sodom wanted to commit the sin of homosexual acts with the men who were visiting Lot. (These men were actually Angels, but everyone thought that they were men.) This sin was widely accepted in that city, even as if it were a right, and they were accustomed to committing this sin often. For they all gathered together to demand the same sin, even with men who were merely visiting the city. And this sin must have been long-standing in that city, since it had permeated their society thoroughly, from boys even to old men.

Now some persons claim that the sin condemned by the story of Sodom is solely the sin of rape. But this is obviously not the case. The attempted rape of the men visiting Lot is certainly a sin, but rape has occurred in other cases in the stories of the Bible, and God did not destroy the entire city where the rape or attempted rape occurred. The sin of the whole city of Sodom was that all the men, from young to old, were willing to commit unnatural sexual acts; they apparently did so as a matter of course. And so Sacred Scripture tells us that there was an outcry about the sins of Sodom even before this incident at Lot's house.

Teka, Genesis na naman galing ang verse? Akala ko ba di na natin papansinin ang Lumang Tipan kasi batas lang daw yan sa tribung Judeo?

Kaya nga nilaglag na ang mga batas ukol sa pagbawal ng mga pangit na pumasok sa simbahan at iba pang kakatawanang batas.

Hanap na lang po tayo ng Bagong Tipan na verse kasi meron na man po eh.

Ateo wrote:Teka, Genesis na naman galing ang verse? Akala ko ba di na natin papansinin ang Lumang Tipan kasi batas lang daw yan sa tribung Judeo?

Kaya nga nilaglag na ang mga batas ukol sa pagbawal ng mga pangit na pumasok sa simbahan at iba pang kakatawanang batas.

Hanap na lang po tayo ng Bagong Tipan na verse kasi meron na man po eh.

cherry-picking tawag dyan ateo.

ginagamit lang nila kung wala nang malingunan ehhehe

palpak talaga ang turo dyan kasi wala sa NT, love nalang daw para summarized

Yidda wrote:

There are specific passages that condemn homosexual acts as always gravely immoral.The following passages in the Bible teach definitively that homosexual acts are gravely immoral.
And this condemnation of the acts implies that the orientation toward those acts is a grave disorder.

[Genesis]
{13:13} But the men of Sodom were very wicked, and they were sinners before the Lord beyond measure.

{18:20} And so the Lord said, "The outcry from Sodom and Gomorrah has been multiplied, and their sin has become exceedingly grievous.

{19:4} But before they went to bed, the men of the city surrounded the house, from boys to old men, all the people together.
{19:5} And they called out to Lot, and they said to him: "Where are the men who entered to you in the night? Bring them out here, so that we may know them."

The men of Sodom wanted to commit the sin of homosexual acts with the men who were visiting Lot. (These men were actually Angels, but everyone thought that they were men.) This sin was widely accepted in that city, even as if it were a right, and they were accustomed to committing this sin often. For they all gathered together to demand the same sin, even with men who were merely visiting the city. And this sin must have been long-standing in that city, since it had permeated their society thoroughly, from boys even to old men.

Now some persons claim that the sin condemned by the story of Sodom is solely the sin of rape. But this is obviously not the case. The attempted rape of the men visiting Lot is certainly a sin, but rape has occurred in other cases in the stories of the Bible, and God did not destroy the entire city where the rape or attempted rape occurred. The sin of the whole city of Sodom was that all the men, from young to old, were willing to commit unnatural sexual acts; they apparently did so as a matter of course. And so Sacred Scripture tells us that there was an outcry about the sins of Sodom even before this incident at Lot's house.

the verses never mentioned homosexuality...did it?

vril, it is clearly expressed on those passages.

{19:6} Lot went out to them, and blocking the door behind him, he said:
{19:7} "Do not, I ask you, my brothers, do not be willing to commit this evil.
{19:8} I have two daughters who as yet have not known man. I will bring them out to you; abuse them as it pleases you, provided that you do no evil to these men, because they have entered under the shadow of my roof."

Lot sinned by offering his two daughters to the men of Sodom, for this type of formal cooperation with evil is always immoral. But the point that Sacred Scripture is making here is that some sexual sins are of a more serious type than other sexual sins. Unnatural sexual acts are more gravely disordered than sinful heterosexual acts.

{19:24} Therefore, the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah sulphur and fire, from the Lord, out of heaven.

The sin of Gomorrah is not specified in Sacred Scripture. But Sodom and Gomorrah received the same punishment of destruction, therefore both cities were committing grave sins throughout their populations. Sodom sinned by unnatural sexual acts between persons of the same gender. It may be the case that Gomorrah sinned by unnatural sexual acts between a man and a woman. These two cities were given the same punishment, for different but similar sins.

Jewel wrote:...
cherry-picking tawag dyan ateo.

ginagamit lang nila kung wala nang malingunan ehhehe

palpak talaga ang turo dyan kasi wala sa NT, love nalang daw para summarized

Jewel, side question muna, papi. Saan ka ba natuto ng Bible? Mukhang kayong mga Muslim dito ay maalam sa Bible. Seguro sa mga anti-Christian websites kau pumupunta ano?

Yidda wrote:vril, it is clearly expressed on those passages.

{19:6} Lot went out to them, and blocking the door behind him, he said:
{19:7} "Do not, I ask you, my brothers, do not be willing to commit this evil.
{19:8} I have two daughters who as yet have not known man. I will bring them out to you; abuse them as it pleases you, provided that you do no evil to these men, because they have entered under the shadow of my roof."

Lot sinned by offering his two daughters to the men of Sodom, for this type of formal cooperation with evil is always immoral. But the point that Sacred Scripture is making here is that some sexual sins are of a more serious type than other sexual sins. Unnatural sexual acts are more gravely disordered than sinful heterosexual acts.

{19:24} Therefore, the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah sulphur and fire, from the Lord, out of heaven.

The sin of Gomorrah is not specified in Sacred Scripture. But Sodom and Gomorrah received the same punishment of destruction, therefore both cities were committing grave sins throughout their populations. Sodom sinned by unnatural sexual acts between persons of the same gender. It may be the case that Gomorrah sinned by unnatural sexual acts between a man and a woman. These two cities were given the same punishment, for different but similar sins.

Hi Yidda,

Please let me know if I get this right.

It doesn't make sense. Lot offered his daughters to be raped instead of his men? Are you sure this is the word of god? Lot allowed his daughters to be raped instead of his men being pulled in for a homosexual act? I dont get it. Something is really wrong with Lot. Who's stupid enough to allow his daughters to be raped in exchange for a homosexual act?

And why is same gender sex is more serious than opposite gender sex? What is a specific sexual act by homosexuals that can be so reviling than a heterosexuals? Is it the annal sex ?, The oral sex? The kissing? Aren't these things also done by heterosexuals?