Comments on: Gay Education

By: rjs0416

rjs0416 — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 23:44:50 +0000

With that logic, as satanism is a reverse-sect of the Christian religion, it seems rather a poor point of comparison re: other religious structures. The structure of Satanism ebbs from a desire to defile. The same cannot be said from Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and paganism.

Same-gender marriage, as well, when performed under another religion or through the state is not so to be sacrilegious, as it invokes other ceremonies with an independent basis from uniquely Christian practices.

By: cjohnweb

cjohnweb — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 23:44:50 +0000

I honestly think we should remove the term “Civil union”, and then change “Marriage” to “Civil Union” so as to make everyone equal without offending the sacred ceremony that the church performs seeing as how they were doing this long before anyone else.

Thanks!

By: cjohnweb

cjohnweb — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 23:44:50 +0000

I agree, but also disagree.

I think it should have been removed from the start. I have been wanting it gone since I went to high school and learned of the separation of church and state.

From what I see of Sacrilegious things, Satanic ceremonies are structured after Christian ceremonies with the intent to defile the original ceremonies. I see same sex Marriage as sacrilegious because it is structured after the Christian ceremony, just altered a little bit…..

By: rjs0416

rjs0416 — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 23:44:50 +0000

Heh. Perhaps in my straightforward tone, what was intended as simple discourse seemed like an attack.

I didn’t read the history of your comment chain, but still hold to my opinion that a cat/dog analogy is not applicable.

“You can’t be something you are not” is assumptive, since I am perfectly capable of self-identifying as homosexual. I am gay. I have romantic and sexual attractions to the same-gender that I choose to foster. By that alone, a dog can be a cat if said cat is a dog

By: rjs0416

rjs0416 — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 23:44:50 +0000

Now there, CJ, I will agree with you. Marriage should have never been a civil structure.

If only ancestors had the foresight to see it that, and all the complications it brought attaching an historically religious word with a potentially limiting and complex civil structure.

I am not debunking sacramental marriage at all. Like you, I am making a clear and distinct separation of sacramental and civil. Still, the word is so entwined in the civil that it must be opened, rather than removed.

By: bLuEnOsEbLeEd

bLuEnOsEbLeEd — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 23:44:50 +0000

fuck gays yo we be reprisenton the straight guys yo? see i be sayin. sorry my hands be greasy from this fried chicken her. shit yo i cant imagine no dick goin up mah sphinctah. yo keep real much love yo.

By: cjohnweb

cjohnweb — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 23:44:50 +0000

A lot of what you say here is fallacy, so don’t personally attack me. I am simply explaining why this video is more than just “Gay Education”, it’s talking trash about churches.

FYI you have taken my statement out of context with the dog/cat thing. It was a very pliable analogy and I don’ think you understood how I was using it – I was saying that you can’t be something you are not just because you want to.

By: cjohnweb

cjohnweb — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 23:44:50 +0000

If you look up above, this whole conversation started with my first comment, so I am not violating terms of the conversation as I started it (at least, this instance of it).

Yes, it is subjective and opinionated, that’s what I am trying to explain.

We are founded on Judeo Christian Traditions as a nation.

Marriage was a religious ceremony before this society decided to try and change it to fit their lives.

Marriage should have never been a legally binding thing to begin with.

By: rjs0416

rjs0416 — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 23:44:50 +0000

Thank you for that, link. By definition, any behavioral action by any human is natural, irregardless of what others may say. Simply barring procreation does not make an act unnatural. To claim otherwise would be to speculate the the sole individual purpose of sexuality is to procreate, which is not an individual goal, but a societal goal. Evidently, we are still reproducing irregardless of 2-3% instances of homosexuality.

God, by definition, is unnatural. That’s literary truth.

By: rjs0416

rjs0416 — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 23:44:50 +0000

Also, same-gender marriage, while never being a part of this topic or this video, is possible. Many nations, along with MA, CT, NH, Iowa, and perhaps CA, NY, ME, and DC in the near future, make same-gender marriage possible. It has nothing to do with a dog feeling like a cat at all. That would be like saying “it’s like gay men feeling like straight kangaroos”. Your opinion of “wrong” is subjective to religious morality, a non-universal morality in the eyes of the state.