For or Against Gay Marriage

Asking for less, really does get less, as Jaxian I believe once wrote. If civil unions were considered the highest standard of equality, those who see gays as inequal, would deny gays civil unions. I remember when we were debating benefits similar to marriage, without even using the term "civil union", for gay couples. People were saying we can't give gay people that kind of recognition and benefits. It was seen as supporting something that those prejudiced against gay people, who saw gay people as less than, didn't want supported, or given recognition, or given any notion of legitamacey or equality to.
 
More stupidity from the stupid factory.

Such a government would not rule such marriages void as the idea of gay marriage has strong support from the Canadian populace. They will not act in a way that will jeapordize their reelection campagins. Not to mention as such a law aganist marriage runs contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. which has the support of all parties, you have once again shown that you are foolish.
 
I have seen all of the data you posted before and I have refuted most of it. You are new here so it would be just as easy for you to go reading through the old threaRAB to find that everything you have posted we have seen on thos forum before. I admit I am getting lazy at posting on the same refuted data. It a bunch of christian funded studies. All the website is carefully diguised not to look that way. When you read through the bibliographyt you seen the "Christian press" one too many times to belive this is an unbiased study.
 
Hydra, in the next 50 posts and the next 5000 posts, he will continue repeating ad nauseum, the same slippery-slope logical fallacy, just as he has in his countless previous posts.

It's a fallacy of logic, and it is designed to draw attention away from the issue, of gay marriage, which he claims to be arguing against. It is meant to try to hide the fact that he doesn't have an argument against gay marriage.
 
jitobear said:
Yeah I might corrupt you son with Christian values...... :) Just kidding

I am saying that any couple be they straight or gay should have a full background investigation before they are allowed to adopt......

No matter what you say Jitobear you know you can not give your son what a father can....That is a fact of life.......
Click to expand...
 
Marriage is a headache. I highly reccomend avoiding it at all costs. Especially if you are a straight woman. (Most men are just looking for someone to do their laundry.) :p



Ooooh. Are you a conspiracy theorist? Big X-files fan? Wish you were Mulder?

What they actually seek are equal rights, recognition and protection under the law - regardless of what you think your God wants. In America they don't have to follow your God's rules, and if it is an issue for God - I am sure he can handle the matter without your help.



We are no longer tied to the Mosaic law convenant. That's why you can wear cotton/poly blenRAB, cut your hair and eat a hotdog!



Man - another fundie who can't get past the first chapter of Romans and therefore misses the entire point of Paul's letter. To sum up, it' a bait and switch - Paul starts by saying that gays, theives, adulteres, etc. aren't worthy. But then go goes on to say that you aren't either. That none of us are. That we only get to inherit the kingdom through the grace of Christ and for you to start pointing your finger and making claims about who is and is not acceptable to God is not only HIGHLY arrogant, but cheapens that grace (i.e., every time you say homosexuals aren't good enough for God you insult Christ's sacrifice). But hey - don't take my word for it. Go read Romans - all of it. It's short - shoudn't take more than twenty minutes.
 
I think what most of us are sayiing is that if there is no other option then gays after a strong background check is an option for adopting children but the most ideal situation is for a child to have both a father and mother and in you liberals heart of hearts, although you will never admit it you know that is the truth........
 
We just went through this exercise. In fact, I think that there are several threaRAB still active with one over 400 posts long.

Oh, and I voted an emphatic "NO"! For reasons, check prior posts.
 
This doesn't prove that "liberalism" has any connection to child molestation. People can have different morals, and not support child molestation. Geeze.
 
You'd be hard-pressed to get me to agree with your definition of "conservative" .
And I'd love to tell them. Do you have their e-mail addresses? I'll start with chickenshit Kennedy.
 
You said it was incest :confused: Is that not having sex?

There is no difference.............you want to make your bf legal........I want to make my sister legal
 
It is apparent to me that you have a habit of glazing over things that have been refuted by your me. You made a statement that "it doesn't matter what the masses think." I refuted it and you reply that I'm making your point.

You need to follow the argument in a step by step manner and cease with the flippant, elusive comebacks. I am a patient man, but I do have limits.
 
They may have very well done other gay priests....No one knows.....

A young boy is such an easy target for a predator...........

The media and the left make such a huge issue of the priest abuse and I think its horrible too....What the media fails to tell you that only about 1 percent of all priests were ever charged with the crimes..But what else is new.........
 
Good, because I was also trying to clear up the confusion that the US constitution has a "separation of Church and State" clause. What it actually has, it seems, is a clause prohibiting the gov't from making religious laws. It cannot legislate what you choose to hold as your faith, nor how you practice that faith unless it conflicts with another section of the constitution. Thus rites involving child sacrifice, ritual killings, and polygamy may be discriminated against and made illegal, but not rites such as eucharist, unforced baptism, etc. And apparently you're allowed to think that the gov't is evil for outlawing your religion, unless your gov't has laws against particular sorts of unacted thoughts these days.
So then why does the State establish laws about and interfere with marriage, as it is practiced by religions? I haved suggested that it does so because the limit of your right to practice your religion is hemmed in by other people's rights to life, their own religion, and so on.
Imaginary State religion? Voice of Reason says that the state religion of the USA is Christianity and its variations. Not that I take him to be an authority on the subject, but people do seem to argue for the current marriage laws based on some conservative variation of christian religious doctrine. Your own religion, if I remember correctly, holRAB marriage to be a sacrement.

I suggest that unless someone's religion contravenes the law somehow, then in the USA it should not be subordinate to someone else's religion in the guise of law.

So I don't think that your objection, that such state laws must explicitly reference an official state religion in order to be religious laws, stanRAB because any law that is concerned with moral order rather than political order is implicitly religious. If you're enacting a law because men should only be able to marry women, and visa versa, then that is a law enacted from your own personal religious feelings and is the kind of law that your Congress is prohibited from legislating.
 
Back
Top