Texas A&M Student Senate Passes Discriminatory LGBT Bill

It would be immoral if it was outside of the confines of covenant marriage.

I am stating my moral beliefs and it is absolutely okay if you object to them, but it doesn't mean that I should have to support it with my money.

A man and a woman who are married are completely free sexually to express themselves how they please no matter if they are able to procreate or not.

Men and women can procreate period. Now are there plenty of reasons why some can't? Sure. But the base truth is that men and women are able to procreate. Thus, it takes a man and a woman to create a viable covenant marriage that fits with the natural plan for humanity. Will there be people who can have babies? Sure. But the fact will always remain that men and women can procreate.

Men and men/women and women have NEVER procreated. It is not the natural order for the species. Thus, in the natural human order, they are not an acceptable pair for marriage relationship. The marriage relationship from the beginning was intended for the safe, proper place for a sexual relationship.

 

the word moral is dictated by what society deems to be proper.

You know what was considered moral? Slavery a few hundred years ago. Witch-hunts. Keeping all women away from work. Making japanese people go into internment camps ala hitler style.

 

I have never FORCED my views on another living person. Will I share what I think with others and allow them to take or reject what I say? Of course.

 

That is the problem with societal morality. According to true Christianity all of the odious actions you just named are not God's will.

Now have some "christian" sects done horrible and callous things? Sure. Example, Westboro Baptist, being one of the worst organizations on the face of the planet.

 

im pretty sure all of the christians in the united states at some point thought slavery was moral because we were saving them from the depths of africa.

the only group not to? One of those "weird" sects you know as Quakers

 

And before you start saying God okays slavery, why don't you read the book of Philemon in the New Testament.

 

ALL? That is a pretty bold statement.

True biblical Christianity would have nothing to do with slavery. And the people you are referring to don't subscribe to the biblical interpretation that I do and many other as well.

 

I'm guessing you're not all that familiar with the bible, then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery

 

Quoted from your link.

Did slavery exist during the OT? Yes. The Israelites were instructed not to make their slaves work with vigour and after seven years were given their opportunity for freedom.

What God was teaching them is more like contractual labor, more than anything. Remember the Prodigal son even said his father took great care of his laborers.

If the Bible was such a slave driving book, why would abolitionists use it primarily in their work toward racial equality in America?

 

Because you can interpret it to say pretty much whatever you want, depending on which sections you want to focus on or ignore.

You know, like most works of fiction.

 

And you know what, you are allowed to have that view and share it with others.

And I don't think less of anyone who who does even though I personally disagree.

That's how this works.

I know the D&D only knows how to throw turds around but most people are able to having differing opinions and still live in harmony and peace.

 

In the natural human order, women should not live past their ability to procreate. They take away resources from those females who are actually raising and birthing children. It is evident that females should not be in a marriage or sexually active after this point.

Ultimately, I don't have any problem with your personal beliefs, but using science and the "natural order" isn't particularly helping your argument. Most agnostics such as myself are perfectly fine with most of the tenets of organized religion; heck, anything that keeps people paying taxes, not committing crimes and forming committed relationships is probably more good than harm. It is the strange ability of cultural mores to be simultaneously flexible and inflexible that is so difficult to comprehend; why the focus-tested words of the Bible, written for another time and age, can be bent one way or the other to justify one's beliefs and morals. Science and observation evolves in a way such that it is easy and necessary to track how and why knowledge changes over time; one's personal belief is subject to the whim of your own life experiences and those who have touched your life in a certain way. In the same way that you wish to love and support those whose morals you abhor, I hope more people will reach out to you with no emnity to change your ideals and beliefs.

Lastly, would you be opposed to the idea of having the government no longer define marriage, and simply refer to every pairing as a civil union? Thus, a civil union would simply be the social contract between two consenting adults as required by the government, and that to be "married", a couple could find an appropriate church/temple to perform a religious (or non-denominational) service. In this way, the convent of marriage is preserved, while allowing for full rights and equality for all. Those who do not approve of gay marriage could simply choose a church that does not perform gay marriages, thus keeping their marriage separate from those whom they do not believe to be moral?

 

I am not opposed to civil unions, though I personally disagree with homosexual acts. Marriage is a religious covenant though and should be retained as such. Why do homosexual couples want to call it marriage so badly if all they want are the same civil rights as hetero couples?

 

So, I guess my wife and I aren't married since we didn't do it in a church and received our license from the state?

 

WOOT!

 

Even if the idea of separate forms of unions between different-sex and same-sex couples didn't smack of "separate but equal" laws that justified segregation and thankfully were ended, I hope you are aware that there are significant differences in "civil unions" and "marriages", so expressing support of civil unions in place of marriages means you don't believe gay people deserve equal rights and protections under our laws.

 

If you like disagree with what is humanely right, then sure, lets agree to disagree.

 

Marriage predates your religion. Arrogant.

 

Wait, there was a plan for humanity?

Did you read that in a book?

 

bobby is prone to re-writing history and science without much regard for history and science.