Comments about ‘A high-profile challenge of Va.'s gay marriage ban’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, Sept. 30 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
mid-state, TN

(continued from previous post)

Lips and mouths were designed for eating, not for kissing. Is kissing therefore immoral?

Is it immoral for one man to kiss another man?

"Homosexuality is sexist because it completely excludes one gender. "

I am Caucasian. If I marry another Caucasian, I have completely excluded other races. Am I therefore racist?

"Endorsement by celebrity means black equals gay?"

Endorsement by black civil rights leaders means that they know a lot more about the comparability of gay rights than you do.

@Eternal --

"Only men and women can have children..."

So what? That is a biological limitation, not a moral one.

"What if many were born gay?"

What if many decided to become celibate monks?

Is celibacy immoral? Paul didn't think so.

"which proliferates evil in societies."

Harm to others is what proliferates evil.

Consensual sex between gay people doesn't harm anyone. Therefore it's none of your business.

"alcohol that gratifies pleasure in the self and the body, yet does great harm spiritually and physically."

Yet alcohol is legal in all 50 states.

And you have yet to show ANY evidence that homosexuality causes ANY harm -- either spiritual or physical.

mid-state, TN

@Jeff --

"Sappho's colony is the most famous example."

Sappho was born and lived in the city of Mytilene, which still exists to this day.

You may be thinking of her educational efforts, which apparently were focused on women. This would have been more or less like a finishing school, and certainly NOT a colony.

Learn some history before basing your claims on fantasy.

"Ancient Greece and Rome accepted recreational homosexuality but demanded heterosexuality in marriage. "


Homosexual marriages were recognized in the Roman empire from at least 600 BC. At least two Roman EMPERORS married men.

Rome didn't fall until a couple hundred years after same-sex marriages were banned there.

Again -- learn some history.

"Again, I don't believe that "practice" is necessarily a genetic predisposition."

Did some gay activist go around teaching giraffes and black swans how to be gay??

"Since kissing involves lips, and we have lips, I'm not sure if your biological assessment is valid. "

And sex involves sexual organs -- so why are you complaining about gay people who have sex?

Straight couples often enjoy the same activities that gay people do. Are they acting immorally?

(continued in next post)

Eldersburg, MD


Having a strong conviction in what is believed can be a wonderful thing. But, who are you trying to convince with a litany of details, yourself or others?

Are questions a manifestation of truth genuinely sought independent of conclusions found, or does the end justify the means already in the eyes of the beholder?

Are questions rhetorically asked to overload with details that justify one vantage point and discount all other possibilities?

Are the correct questions being asked to gain knowledge, versus declare personal opinions that lead down avenues of endless debate, denial, redirection, and rebuttal?

In the pursuit of knowledge and truth, is one open to ideas outside the current spectrum of understand and locus of control?

Ah, but, if one does not want to hear anything to the contrary and uses debating as a tactic to continue a never-ending argument as a means of self-assertion of beliefs, then is the truth really the object of intent?

Or, is the object of intent to further convince others of things already believed that have no chance of deviation despite any evidence to the contrary?

Such formiddible techniques of persuasion when truth is nebulous. But is it?

mid-state, TN

@EternalPerspective --

"who are you trying to convince with a litany of details, yourself or others? "

I'm not actually trying to convince anyone. I'm simply pointing out the many and obvious flaws in your arguments.

And since you haven't answered any of my rebuttals, I see that I've succeeded.


Eldersburg, MD


Flaws or just one set of opinions based on what you know to date concerning history and other areas of worldly study?

Faith is not based on what can be quantified by the physical senses or those temporal objects humanity views as measurable. Does that make it less true?

So, if I were to answer your questions, it would create much dialog that is analogous with comparing apples to oranges. Where would we then go from there?

There is no purpose in making a case to someone who is adamantly opposed to the very foundation of another's belief system. Hence, we have an impasse...

Until God prepares you...that which is quantifiable by the physical world will always supersede the pursuit of spiritual truths. The latter only comes with faith and preconditions that permit truth to be given by God.

If one wants to know the truth about this topic and many others pertaining to the existence, purity, and immutability of God's laws, they simply need to ask God directly in all humility, sincerity, and intent and act upon what is given. But only God knows of this state, so seek and ye shall find...

mid-state, TN

@EternalPerspective --

"Flaws or just one set of opinions based on what you know to date concerning history and other areas of worldly study?"

You are welcome to your own opinions. But you are not welcome to your own "facts" -- and when your opinions are logically contradictory, they will justifiably be questioned.

Faith, whether objectively verifiable or not, should always maintain internal consistency. If it doesn't, then you need to question that faith long and hard.

Here, UT

Jeff says:

"Ancient Greece and Rome accepted recreational homosexuality but demanded heterosexuality in marriage. China survived because of heterosexual marriages."


At least in ancient Rome same sex couples did marry. There are records of these marriages.

No nation has EVER survived because of "heterosexual marriage". They've survived because their inhabitants had sex, which in turn often produced children (but not always). Marriage is not necessary to reproduce.

Here, UT

@Eternal Perspective;

You're first going to have to prove the existence of your god and that what you say he said is actually what he said BEFORE you can impose your beliefs in him on others.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments