[Des]

What kinds of tests have been performed by the E.P.A., C.D.C., and W.H.O. to analyze the effects of releasing so much gay into the ecosystem? How do we know this will not be even more harmful than hydrofluorocarbons, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, carbon monoxide, and Agent Orange combined?

It would be highly irresponsible of them to release something so potentially hazardous into the environment without at very least 100 years of testing in controlled environments. I haven't even seen reports showing long term effects on laboratory rats exposed to gay, yet they are considering uncontrolled human exposure? Monstrous. Even Nazi doctors weren't so callous and cavalier with human life!

[Benedict A. Davis]

Originally Posted by Des

What kinds of tests have been performed by the E.P.A., C.D.C., and W.H.O. to analyze the effects of releasing so much gay into the ecosystem? How do we know this will not be even more harmful than hydrofluorocarbons, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, carbon monoxide, and Agent Orange combined?

It would be highly irresponsible of them to release something so potentially hazardous into the environment without at very least 100 years of testing in controlled environments. I haven't even seen reports showing long term effects on laboratory rats exposed to gay, yet they are considering uncontrolled human exposure? Monstrous. Even Nazi doctors weren't so callous and cavalier with human life!

How would they quantify the results? Do you think they have done tests? Is it something to do with seeing more rainbows as of late?

[Des]

Originally Posted by Benedict A. Davis

How would they quantify the results? Do you think they have done tests? Is it something to do with seeing more rainbows as of late?

Well see, that's the thing. We can't rightly know what the results will be without proper testing. It may be that we will see catastrophic climate change, or it could be something as simple as murder rates rising 5,000% near gay population concentration levels. Perhaps it will be economic in nature, say by causing housing markets to fall through the floor. It may even cause a strain of the Aids which is airborne, resulting in non-gays becoming infected. Those increased rainbow rates might even be related, and who knows what disasters that could cause. So much refracted light might destroy crop production, leading to global famine and another ice age.

Frankly, we do not know the scope of harm releasing wild gays into the human population might cause. Only centuries of testing would allow us to tentatively estimate the degree and nature of danger involved.

This isn't something as trivial as lead pipes or irradiated rain clouds we're dealing with here. Cautious observation over an extended period of time is the only reasonable course of action. We've seen the damage invasive species have done in the past, both with cane toads and Mexicans. We must learn from the mistakes of the Austrians and Democrats.

[XspazzboX]

More kids will grow up without a mother and a father. Children need male and female role models.

[Basilissa]

Originally Posted by XkazzoX

More kids will grow up without a mother and a father. Children need male and female role models.

Well, not necessarily, dear. Male offspring is naturally superior to their mothers (Genesis 2:18), therefore, sons just need the role model of their father. Female offspring is naturally inferior to their fathers (1 Timothy 2:13), hence, the fathers need not to be bothered with being role models for their daughters. Mothers will do.

However, it is true that a perfect household requieres a male and a female, since a perfect family needs to have a male head and a submissive wife:

Ephesians 5: 22-24
22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

I hope that helps to clarify this issue.

[Alphonse Alban]

Originally Posted by XkazzoX

More kids will grow up without a mother and a father. Children need male and female role models.

Jesus is the greatest role model anyone can ask for

[XspazzboX]

Originally Posted by Alphonse Alban

Jesus is the greatest role model anyone can ask for

I agree. He is also my only friend.

[Witch Hammer]

Originally Posted by XkazzoX

I agree. He is also my only friend.

It takes two to form a friendship, drooler. Until you get right with Christ and stop prancing around like a gayrod playing the accordion for your cats (), you're just more fuel for the hellfire!

[Increase Boone]

When we have a boar hog that wants to mount another boar hog we put it down cause it ain't gonna make no piglets so since gay people ain't gonna make no babies we have to put them down so they can't get married cause they been shot but not made into bacon. Ain't no reason to keep feeding them if they ain't gonna make babies.

Have a nice day.

Increase Boone

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by Bob4God

There are plenty of secular reasons why the government would have a vested interest in stopping gay marriage, and we are going to list them here and forward the best arguments to the lawyers representing the cause of traditional marriage in the courts, so they don't get embarrassed like they did in front of the Supreme Court last year.

Reason: Traditional Marriage discriminates against homosexual or same sex relationships.

Apologetic: Traditional marriage does not discriminate against anyone. Anyone can enter into a "Traditional Marriage." Homosexuals do not want to get married, they instead want to define Traditional Marriage.

The Declaration of Independence says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable Rights; that among these, are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness"

When we do not acknowledge the part that says, "Endowed by their Creator" we obviously can interpret the verse out of context. Obama opposed the Supreme Court from defending Traditional Marriage, but I personally think, it needs to be addressed in context, and therefore, even the beliefs of the countries Forefathers is relevant. Further, I believe he weaseled his ideology into the country by often quoting the Declaration of Independence but leaving out the part about our Creator, which I would think could open the door to Natural Law.

Furthermore, the argument presented on its face appears that the one challenging Traditional Marriage wants to provide EQUAL status for all. But if we question them further, and ask, do you oppose more than two being in the relationship? We can then build a further case that they are establishing non equal right,s but only attempting to grant privilege for only a certain group. If they say no, we can ask them why marry then?

[Calvinist]

Forgot to add to the end of my above post, the reason for my questions. If anything, tax deduction or money is more than likely to be the central motif of secular thought. Whether the Gov't or the Homosexual community.

I can't see how the homosexual community is going to argue for Equal Status, when they will not defend other arrangements, woman woman man, man man woman ect. They are not attempting to establish Equal status, that would be in some ways a step towards a self-sacrifice. I don't believe unbelievers have anything else to drive them but selfish intentions and motifs. I think drawing a parallel between God's Ordinance to all mankind contrasted with the homosexual community will unveil the unrighteousness that drives them. That passion that drives them is vile.

And to add to the Traditional Marriage discriminating against anyone. The Traditional Marriage does not even discriminate against unbelievers or any religion as long as God's definition of marriage is kept True. The Ordinance went out to all mankind, and was defined as being between one man and woman, so that they could become one flesh. There are many benefits if we break down "why", another words the complimentary roles of man and woman for potential of Creation. I say "potential" because the argument that older couples can't have children is usually neutralized through this wording. Jesus reiterated these Scriptures when the "Left" and "Right" Hallel and Shema tried to entrap Him. So I do not believe we should argue from political positions leaning left or right, He used Sola Scriptura

[Joanna Lytton-Vasey]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

Traditional marriage does not discriminate against anyone. Anyone can enter into a "Traditional Marriage." Homosexuals do not want to get married, they instead want to define Traditional Marriage.

Quite right, subject to changing define to redefine.

But in the following post, you let yourself down, Mr (or is it Mrs?) Calvinist.

He used Sola Scriptura

I think you have already been asked not to write in Spanish. This condition is clearly set out in the Terms of Service you agreed to when signing up to these Godly forums: You, however, agree to speak in God's language, American English.

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by Joanna Lytton-Vasey

Quite right, subject to changing define to redefine.

But in the following post, you let yourself down, Mr (or is it Mrs?) Calvinist.

I think you have already been asked not to write in Spanish. This condition is clearly set out in the Terms of Service you agreed to when signing up to these Godly forums: You, however, agree to speak in God's language, American English.

Thank you Joanna, I did notice it after posting but I am unable to go back and edit the post.

It is Mr. and is it Mrs, Ms, or Miss?

[Didymus Much]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

...It is Mr. and is it Mrs, Ms, or Miss?

A Ms. at Landover?

You're funny.

[Joanna Lytton-Vasey]

It is Mrs.

Originally Posted by Didymus Much

A Ms. at Landover?

You're funny.

What about that strange ThinksDesign woman? I bet she calls herself Ms!

[Pastor Isaac Peters]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

I can't see how the homosexual community is going to argue for Equal Status, when they will not defend other arrangements, woman woman man, man man woman ect.

I can see how, dear friend. Whatever God likes, sodomites hate, and vice versa, just so that they can spite Him. If the sodomites supported an arrangement such as a man and multiple women, they would support an arrangement that God has blessed, and they can never bring themselves to do so:

[2 Samuel 12:7-8 KJV] 7 And Nathan said to David, Thou [art] the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; 8 And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if [that had been] too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by Pastor Isaac Peters

I can see how, dear friend. Whatever God likes, sodomites hate, and vice versa, just so that they can spite Him. If the sodomites supported an arrangement such as a man and multiple women, they would support an arrangement that God has blessed, and they can never bring themselves to do so:

[2 Samuel 12:7-8 KJV] 7 And Nathan said to David, Thou [art] the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; 8 And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if [that had been] too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

Yes Pastor, when I read the above in Context I am reminded of the arguments that Polygamist make, that apart of the then foreign relations of conquered lands, conquered kings gave their daughters to the Conquering King in part to seal a treaty. I find resemblance to the demands of certain Muslim demands too. On the same basis I would ask a Polygamist whether they are looking to provide Equal Status for those wanting to engage in Incest or even Pedophile?

And I agree with you Pastor Isaac Peters, there is no limit to the state of Depravity of an unregenerate man. However, homosexuals having seem to identified themselves as a homosexual and of a community where they find much pride, I do not think that most will accept others outside themselves and defend the other communities even as such polygamist. The Homosexual representatives are more than likely not going to make a case for equal status in front of the Supreme Court for all, but instead for only one group, I don't think they would have a chance in America at this point of its depravity with regard to success. Perhaps if they pushed the issue further they may eventually set the stage for someone worse than Obama to take office.

I think that there needs to be a clear distinction made, is group b looking for equal status as group a, and therefore willing to argue for equal status for all groups following, c, d, e? Or are they looking for special privilege or status of only one group?

Lastly, it is obvious that these groups have rejected what is Endowed by their Creator" as they must appeal to man and cannot appeal to the Almighty in Court or Even Natural Law. Saying there is a Gay Gene ect, I ask why wouldn't a witty Lawyer jump on it to introduce Natural Law. I dunno as I am not a Lawyer, but I would suspect that the Lawyer should be a believer and stand for not only our Principals and values, but to Convict the Conscience of America, the way Pastors used to do.

On another note, I read in the last day that there are two instances where Muslims are being denied Sharia law, and I ask on what grounds? I still do not understand how the Constitution defines Religion, and at the same time rejects the then dominant religion of the drafters in various ways, such as having the Ten Commandments in the Court room. I would think that one would need to define it with respect to its context and the author in order to understand the authors meaning. Therefore, arguments that clearly violate the Holy Law or even Natural Law for that matter should be seriously questioned as whether they even fit into the definition of Religion, especially of what is means to say "Their Creator." I was hoping someone could elaborate on this?

Enjoy

[WWJDnow]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

Furthermore, the argument presented on its face appears that the one challenging Traditional Marriage wants to provide EQUAL status for all. But if we question them further, and ask, do you oppose more than two being in the relationship? We can then build a further case that they are establishing non equal right,s but only attempting to grant privilege for only a certain group. If they say no, we can ask them why marry then?

I have no problem with a man marrying as many women as he wants to. God's very clear on that point in the Bible. But as soon as you have two husbands involved, it starts ruining everyone else's marriages, and that will be the end of what little civilization we will have left after eight years of Obama's dictatorship.

[Des]

I don't think anyone is telling these cock gobblers they can't get married.They're just bringing the wrong tools for the job. Nobody tells them they can't go bowling either, but if they show up to the bowling alley with cleats and a football, they're going to be turned back at the door.

Long story short, if gays want to get married, all they need to do is bring a woman and put a ring on her finger.

[Pastor Isaac Peters]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

Yes Pastor, when I read the above in Context I am reminded of the arguments that Polygamist make, that apart of the then foreign relations of conquered lands, conquered kings gave their daughters to the Conquering King in part to seal a treaty. I find resemblance to the demands of certain Muslim demands too. On the same basis I would ask a Polygamist whether they are looking to provide Equal Status for those wanting to engage in Incest or even Pedophile?

If their arguments are based on free exercise of religion and their right to follow the Bible, they do not have to concern themselves with slippery-slope arguments. God's Law allows some things but forbids some other things that to the world look similar; in fact, God's Law can look pretty arbitrary from a worldly perspective. The reason, of course, is that the Lord most high is not bound by human conceptions of logic; if He were, He would not be omnipotent. Secular courts recognize this and accept that a religious belief does not have to "make sense" as the world understands it, but just has to be sincerely held. If anyone tries to set up a slippery-slope argument, the surest way to prove that person wrong is to say that you are exercising your religious right to follow the Bible as it is and to give direct quotations of what the Holy Bible actually has to say about the various subjects. (In that regard, you do know which Bible verses forbid pedophilia, right?)

Saying there is a Gay Gene ect,

Then you and I can agree that the notion of a "gay gene" is utter nonsense, since heritability of characteristics as taught in the Bible is completely different from what secularists say it is:

[Genesis 30:37-39 KJV] 37 And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which [was] in the rods. 38 And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink. 39 And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.

I still do not understand how the Constitution defines Religion, and at the same time rejects the then dominant religion of the drafters in various ways, such as having the Ten Commandments in the Court room.

I think a good starting point for that discussion would be for you to quote verbatim the language of the Constitution that defines religion.