For or Against Gay Marriage

More importantly, why did they not want government establishing or sponsoring religion at all? And isn't there a treaty that was signed that specifically stated that the U.S. is NOT a christian nation?

If this is a supposedly christian nation, then why establish that it is not from the beginning?
 
Hmmm. you still must be looking for that. you haven't proved anything beyond that you're a complete fool and you're a shameless, traitor like coward.
 
This thread is two years old and there are whole sections of the database where you can go and complain about gays and anothere where you can demand that we all follow the mythology of your Bible, both with more recent threaRAB.
 
Where your err is you can marry your sister for other reasons then sex....The same benefits you as a gay man are seeking a brother and sister could seek......
 
Unless you're in Mass, you can't be married legally. They may not prosecute you until you attempt to assert some unfounded demand on the gov't such as attempting to collect SS survivor's benefits or filing taxes as "joint/married".
 
what it "proves" is that Americans don't want gay marriage and when activists try to use the courts to force gay marriage on US, we react. That reaction may exceed what is necessary, but when you whack a hornet's nest, anything can happen.
 
You think this is a liberal or a conservative issue, and you are wrong. Perhaps this seems the case to you, because you are from an older generation. However for younger generations, it is much less so.



Because you don't have a logical argument, as you keep showing, we can and do beat you in a debate.



Your opinion is that gay people are less than and have fewer rights. That applies, unless we do not act like who we are as gays, unless we do not show our difference.
 
I agree that it would be nice if laws reflected moral facts, but unfortunately people disagree on what moral facts there are and whether religion is any basis for moral opinions. In particular I found religion through the study of morality, and continue to hold that moral opinion comes before faith. My opinion of course.

Now, the fact that we each hold opinions on the relation of law to morality gives us no reason whatsoever to conclude that they can or cannot be divorced from each other. What does seem to infer a divorce between law and morality is the fact that we hold different opinions and need to reach a political consensus about how we are to deal with those differences. Where the law is decided by political consensus and not anyone's particular morality, then it seems that morality has no necessary connection to law.

Certainly we can say that in reaching that consensus we will probably need to share our moral opinions in order to figure out how to accommodate them, but this is not to say that these laws are based on moral sentiments or facts. I take it to be a tautological fact that where something is accommodated, it is not foundational. The basis of law is instead political.
The thing is that some people disagree with you that a gay partnership does not "really fit the definition of marriage". Personally I don't have a problem with calling same-sex marriage a civil union in legal terms and calling it marriage everywhere else, some people think that if civil unions are marriage in all but name, you might as well call a spade (civil union) a shovel (marriage) legally as well. It certainly saves making two separate [sets of] laws.
What isn't acceptable about this? It's legal recognition, rather than social. You don't have to acknowledge them to be married in the eyes of your church.
If gays are asking for legal recognition for a relationship that your religion doesn't sanction, then it seems that they're asking for a political recognition and not a religious recognition. After all, if they shared your religion then they wouldn't get married. But they don't follow your religion and do want to get married according to theirs. Denying them the right to exercise their own religion as they see fit because your religion doesn't like the way their religion works seems odd, as well as contrary to the political rights that you desire for the exercise of your own religion.
 
No - you tell people what they are to do, think and feel based on your reading of the Bible - and then have the gal to say they won't saved for it. If that isn't condemnation, please explain to me what is. In your history on this board you have made claims about what Christians have to believe on political issues, who they can vote for, and even what music they can listen to.

You have gleefully either alluded to or blatantly made claims about who gets saved and who doesn't. Bottom line - YOU DON'T KNOW. Not your decision.

And you have yet to acknowledge my point. The Bible doesn't support this ban - or your using it (the Bible) to oppress.
 
Gay parents can be better than some heterosexual pairs. I've seen some rather disfunctional families where the straight parents did more damage by accident than any number of gays could have done on purpose.

Parenting abilities have little to do with this discussion.
 
You said that my pay grade wasn't high enough to judge others. I disagreed. I judge many people during both formal and informal performance reviews. It comes with the title of "manager". :)
 
You may not believe it but morals wise this country is going to hell in a handbasket, and if the "Big Guy in the sky" is looking down at things that are happening here he can not be happy......

Judgment day might be on us sooner then we think.....

You can scoff at that though......That is the same thing they did before the Big Flood and the destruction od Sodom...........
 
So what makes it a threat to marriage in your view, if you believe it is a threat to marriage? If the onus was on people to prove their rights, there would be no rights. In a free society, the onus is on those who want to limit rights, to provide a logical reason for doing so.
 
I am not WBC pastor Fred Phelps,I am a very far younger fellow.And Bible also says,judge with righteous judgements.Do not judge stanRAB for not accusing people falsely,like for example,the pharisees tried to accuse Jesus in order to kill Him.
 
Back
Top