California Voters Approve Gay-Marriage Ban

Yup, he said,

First of all... you're quoting a crisis center that doesn't provide any sources for anything they're saying. Provide the source where they came to the conclusion that "95% of known pedophiles are heterosexual". I'd love to see it.

Second: I love how you chopped off the start of the "Child molesters are generally married men, of any age, who are primarily drawn to their own children and step-children." part because it didn't fit your argument. I also love how you neglected to mention that in the article it makes a clear distinction between child molestor and pedophile.
This is the rest of the quote that ehBeth so dishonestly chopped off:
"Active Pedophiles are generally single men between the ages of 16 and 35."

And as I've pointed out so often, of course there are MORE heterosexual pedophiles because the vast majority of the population is heterosexual.

Shocking you have to be so dishonest in the process of making your argument. Not to mention... how about you use a valid source that backs their claims up rather than just make claims with nothing to support them, like your link.

It means that there is no age requirement in regards to whether or not one is a homosexual. It doesn't matter if your parter is 2 or 92. If your sexual partner is the same sex you are, then you're engaging in homosexual behavior.

You can go pick up a concordance just like I can.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2316&t=KJV

4) whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way

a) God's representative or viceregent

1) of magistrates and judges

So you say Thomas did not use the correct word for God and you say there is only one God huh? Well Thomas used the word theos... Ummm you can't get any more God than theos...

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2316&t=KJV

Of uncertain affinity; a deity, especially (with ὁ (G3588)) the supreme Divinity

So did you lie or did you just not actually study the theology you pedal? I bet the Westboro Baptists would have known this.

Well the Bible calls the devil the God [theos] of this world... also

Why didn't the bible use a different word there?

So there are now two Gods mentioned in the Bible and didn't Jesus take the powers of the devil when a descended into the grave so that would make Jesus the "theos" of this world... also

Now we have three gods... And isn't Jesus considered "the word" which was Jehovah? Your theology is about as thin as your sociology...

As for the 80% comment... Can't stand to be wrong huh?

Single men can be bisexual too just in case you are wondering.

I just posted that exact link.

The word used can as easily mean viceregent or representative of God. Considering the fact Jesus Christ shows times and again that he is not a God then as I said earlier, context and cross-referencing would dictate that the interpretation of Thomas' words can only mean he's expressing Jesus' relationship with God.

Hence why when jesus is called "Good Teacher" his response is "Why do you call me good, no one is good but one, that is God."

And PLEASE back up the 80% bisexual comment. I'd love to see it.

So theology is the study of God's representative?

Yes actually... It's the study of Gods' doctrine. The only representation of God we have here on earth.

The Bible is an insult to the universe and humanity.

"Theology" where you and study the word "know" till it means everything and you "know" nothing when you are done.

So here we see that statistically women are not prone to pedophilia. Yet the Bible brands them as inferior and the root of sin... Oooo sinful Eve... Women have suffered under this horrible scourge for thousands of years... And you have the gall to praise this book as containing some divine revelation necessary for life?

Wrong about women, wrong about the universe (God supposedly created) and also wrong about gays... Wrong about most everything else too.

The pyramids were finished 2000 years before the Bible says Moses existed. The pyramids were not built by slaves but highly skilled and well paid Egyptians. Once again the Biblical authors denigrate others for their own glory...

We don't need a biblical spirit to save us from this world (hell no!) we need education and reason to save us from this terrible life stealing book.

This book is shameful and once again science and statistics prove the Bible to be a book of lies compounded by more lies and half truths... Just enough truth so idiots swallow the rest of it without question.

"This is me Emma (on the right) and my fiance, Bailey (left), in Rome last year. We are getting married next month in New York City. I traveled 3000 miles to be with her and I cant wait to put a ring on it!"

MPs pass same-sex marriage bill in final third reading
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/05/21/breaking-mps-pass-same-sex-marriage-bill-in-final-third-reading/

YAY! England has marriage equality and not just civil unions!!!!

Good for them. Maybe you should move there. Fortunately for me I live in a state that doesn't recognize homosexual marriages or civil unions. Not to mention we voted recently to make it a near impossibility for us to even consider making either of those detrimental activities legal.

Maybe England and NY will soon make incestuous marriages legal too and you can celebrate the equality for them as well lol. Or are you just a hypocrite that only believes in this equality ideal when it's beneficial to your argument?

And I asked this earlier... what do you, the advocates of homosexual marriage, feel about polygamy? If you make homosexual marriage legal, you will INHERENTLY be forced to answer whether or not you agree with polygamy. And if you say it's acceptable for Lisa to marry both John and Samantha... then what argument do you have to tell Jedidiah that he's not allowed to marry his 20 wives which will then all qualify for marriage benefits even though they put NOTHING into the system to make up for those benefits.

What you are is an uninformed fool! Invidious discrimination based on sexual orientation is every bit as oppressive as invidious discrimination based on race. In both cases, invidious discrimination infringes upon the fundamental right to marry. You might discount the importance of constitutional jurisprudence in your belief system, but I don't.

Polgamy isn't marriage it's the existence of multiple marriages each entered without dissolving the last. Marriage may only be entered, maintained, or dissolved in accordance with the law. A person who is already married may not lawfully enter another marriage without lawfully dissolving his first marriage. Enough said!

Why can't you just change the definition of marriage to fit polygamy? You're already doing that to fit homosexuality. Marriage has been EXPLICITLY defined as being between a man and a woman. You simply attempt to change the definition to fit homosexuality. The polygamists are simply going to argue why can't you change the definition again to fit polygamy?

Not to mention, when you state that it's okay for someone to marry a homosexual partner because they're not hurting anyone and they are in love with their partner and you have made bisexuality an acceptable way of life, then what argument do you have to tell that bisexual that they can't express their love through marriage with their partners? They love both of their partners equally so why shouldn't they be allowed to marry both of their partners? Who are you to deny their rights and refuse to allow them to express their love with one another? Who are you to say that they can only visit ONE of their partners in the hospital? Who are you to say that only ONE of their partners can receive healthcare benefits? They're going to argue that you put an undue strain on their relationship with the people they love because you are forcing them to choose between the people they love.

In otherwords, they're simply going to use the EXACT same arguments the homosexuals are using to justify their position. And if you accept the homosexuals arguments you MUST be willing to accept the polygamists argument when they are making the SAME argument. That's part of the problem with accepting homosexual marriage. You put yourself in an INDEFENSIBLE position in regards to other immoral, unjustifiable activities like polygamy or incest.

I'll ask you again... if you are willing to make the argument that we should change the definition of marriage to fit homosexuals... then on what grounds do you then state to the polygamist that we're not going to change the definition of marriage to fit them? Why not change the definition of marriage to fit a Father and his 18 year old son that want to get married?

Why? Because you're a hypocrite and you don't actually believe in equality. You ONLY believe in equality when it's beneficial to your argument. Therefore you do NOT believe in equality and for you to attempt to use it to justify your position is fallacious at best.

No, once again you’re wrong. Marriage is a fundamental right. States regulate marriage by law. State laws establish the minimum age. State laws prohibit incestuous marriages. State laws require you to lawfully terminate your first marriage before you may enter a second marriage. Now I shall use the ignore feature so I nolonger will be reading your incoherent uneducated ramblings.

Maybe you don't understand the argument. Here let me make it a little easier for you.

To set the scenario... You, the homosexuals and their advocates, have created an environment and a society in which living your life as a homosexual or a bisexual is a completely acceptable, normal, legitimate way to live your life. You've also advocated that a marriage to someone of the opposite sex and someone of the same sex are just as valid.

Now my name is Lisa and I come up to you and I state.... I live in a scenario where I love both my same sex partner and my opposite sex partner the exact same. You've already acknowledged that both of these relationships that I am in are legitimate and acceptable ways of living. Now I want to marry both of my partners because I love both of them the same and we want to be able to express our love for one another just like you and all the other married couples out there. We are all consentual adults and we're not harming anyone else. We want to be able to visit each other in the hospital if we're sick or dying. We want to make sure that the people we love are taken care of if we die and we want all of the same advantages that you and your spouse have.

Now why can't we have it? Why should we have to drive a division in our love for one another by being forced to choose one of the people I love over the other?

State laws prohibit homosexual marriage too. You simply change them. Why can't you do the same for incestuous marriage and polygamy? Oh that's right... I forgot... it's because you're a hypocrite and only believe in this ideal of equality when it's beneficial for you and your argument. But when it comes to something that YOU consider to be wrong and immoral it's completely acceptable to deny THOSE people their equality isn't it? Hypocrites are pathetic.

and you can go ahead and ignore me... that's the only way you'll even remotely think you win this argument. Not suprising that you have to run away from the discussion though. You see I don't have to ignore you and flee from the conversation... because I'm right and you're wrong.