pajarito

Just because you don’t agree with it and think its stupid doesn’t necessarily invalidate what he’s saying. It certainly doesn’t necessarily mean that “not the brightest bulb in the box.... or the sharpest knife in the drawer.” And you’ve got nothing to back up what you’re saying except for your own thinking. Maybe you are smarter than he is. I doubt you’re smarter than 3ringheathen, though. I think that homosexuals are immoral based on religious beliefs. That doesn’t necessarily play into whether homosexuals fit into the “marriage” category.

Sounds like you might have needed to get a second opinion other than your particular church (i.e. possibly a different denomination)(not intended to be a hit on the Catholic Church). I agree that many people who claim to “read” the Bible don’t know enough about it. I include myself in that example. There is so much to learn and, more importantly, “learn to apply.” Who are you to question what and how He does? Were you there and do you have a better plan? The apple may, in fact, be figurative. I don’t know. It doesn’t matter. They weren’t supposed to eat of the “tree of life.” In other words, they weren’t supposed to try and make themselves equal with God (i.e. Tower of Babble). Does it also really matter how long they were in the Garden of Eden? Who cares? Does that take away from the purpose of Genesis? What an elementary way of looking at such a complex issue. The Bible first authenticates itself as a text by means of textual criticism and verifiable historical accuracy. Then its contents or internal evidence can be trusted including all that I’ve mentioned about corroborating witnesses.

QuoteI think Robert Knight's not the brightest bulb in the box.... or the sharpest knife in the drawer. I absolutely love it how, if we don't agree with someone, we immediately go after their character, credibility, or intelligence. I think he makes some very good points and makes his arguments very intelligently.

Me too. WFC 2004...Whoo..whoo!!!

Sure they’re stopped from marrying their dog. Even if for religious reasons. That’s not legal. That’s just as ridiculous as two men or two women marrying each other. It’s not “marriage.” The dog might have civil rights if it was married to the person. It might then have additional legal rights if it was married to the person as well. A married dog might be of a higher order than your run of the mill hound dog. I’m being facetious to illustrate the silliness of what we’re arguing.

Apples and oranges Billvon. Just like your thing with abortion and babies who are killed in war. Establishing the social institution of marriage and defining it as the union between one man and one woman isn’t telling anyone what they can or can’t do in their bedrooms. Robert H. Knight: Marriage has been the foundation of civilization for thousands of years in cultures around the world. It is the single most important social institution, and it is the basis for the procreation of children and the heart of family life. Those who are trying to radically redefine it for their own purposes are the ones who are trying to impose their values on the rest of the population. Ordinary people did not pick this fight. They are not the aggressors. They are merely defending the basic morality that has sustained the culture for everyone against a radical attack.

In some states there are sodomy laws still on the books that govern what people can do in their own bedrooms. Insane. Lindsey I agree totally.

Robert H. Knight says: Various social movements have succeeded because they were in accord with natural law and the basic precepts of the moral code. Homosexuality has never been considered morally good, and it is a quantum leap from ending slavery to saying that homosexuality must now be considered good, healthy and worthy of state-protected benefits. Homosexuals enjoy all the rights every other citizen already has -- they can vote, own property, etc.-- but they cannot claim special treatment beyond those rights. Anytime they achieve that, they threaten the civil rights of those who disagree with them.

The Bible says that it happened in 6 days, not 7. Who’s to say what a day is to God. “But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.” 2 Peter 8-9 What’s been proven again and again and what’s considered “theory?” Are you referencing the theory of Evolution? I do not remember all Genesis off the top of my head, but they had kids (one who killed the other), they had kids, those kids had kids, and somewhere not very far from all that, they moved to the 'city' Where did the city come from? and all those people? I would imagine that, once the population grew, they formed into families, then communities, and then broadened into cities. Hence, the beginnings of civilization. The two brothers were Cane and Abel.

That is a legitimate point. Are you telling me that there aren’t US citizens that would wish to and think it should be legal to enter into marriage with an animal (pet)? If so, wouldn’t that be discriminating against them just like homosexuals? If not, why not?

I’m not saying that I believe the whole “rib” thing is literal or figurative. I certainly think that God could do it if he wanted to. However, the Bible does use figurative language sometimes to be taken symbolically. Parables are also used sometimes to explain ideas. On the other hand, the Bible also uses language sometimes inferring specificity. I’m not prepared to say, in reference to the “rib” thing, that it was either. To me, it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t take away from the fact that God created Adam and Eve.

Marriage isn’t just a personal choice of a companion. It is a social institution. What gays do with their own lives does not include entering into what is ”marriage.” The standard for and how that social institution is defined is my business as well as every other US citizen.

Gotta go. Be back later. BRING THE PAIN!!!

I thought we'd already been over that Billvon. The Government's not telling anyone what they can and can't do with their own lives. It also has nothing to do with the scenario of restricting the number of children you can have or social engineering. Marriage is a family institution with purpose. It is not necessarily a religious one. It is to me but not for the State.

I agree that it could have happened that way and I also agree that the causality was from God for reason of design. Who's to say how long it took in reference to what time is to God. Who's also to say that God didn't use evolution in some way to create Adam & Eve (the first to Biblically be considered humans). I don't know and I don't think we will in this lifetime.

That is one of the motivators for marriage but shouldn't be the primary one. The government sactions marriage by awarding benefits to married people because it is the foundational element for our society and affects everything. It should be promoted.

You're saying that human life originated a few seconds after the big bang? I agree that the big bang has nothing to do with a rib donor.

Not generally. It is generally accepted that there was a “big bang” (I believe God initiated that; some do not; regardless of whether you believe in God or not, something initiated it) which initiated the universe. The universe is also expanding so there has to be a limit somewhere. It’s expanding and, if left on this timeline, will theoretically cease to expand at some point and condense. The stars are also using up their energy and are continuing to die off; therefore, the energy in the universe is quantifiable and not infinite.

BRING THE PAIN!!!

Yes. You don't believe in a beginning for the human race?

Ok, how's this: The state has no place interfering in my or anyone else's family life. You’re correct. The state has no business whatsoever interfering in anything you do as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else. That does not, however, mean that you are a legitimate candidate for marriage if you are with a member of the same sex, have multiple partners you wish to marry, wish to marry your sister, or have a thing going for your dog.

You wouldn’t necessarily. However, that’s not the only reason to believe. That’s actually the weakest argument and what I would consider a last resort or last ditch effort.

The fact that marriage is “state sanctioned” makes the movement political. Marriage is governed by the state. There’s no way around the politics. True What you do in your bedroom is not the government’s business. It is the government’s business who can legitimately enter into marriage.

Illustrates the point about people being selfish by nature and, therefore, sinners. Seriously, I’m glad it works for you. I also respect your opinion. No arrogance or condescension intended.