For or Against Gay Marriage

JP II was much loved for the way he reached out to all people, even appealing to those governors' who were quick to execute; like The Tex-Ecutioneer-in-Chief.
 
The state requiring licenses is a relatively recent phenomenon. And regarding marrying your sister, incestuous relationship tend to involve coersion and abuse.

And besides, incest (depending on degree and in which state) is illegal.



But it is required, when challenged, to justify discrimination. If it cannot show compelling state interest, then the discrimination is unconstitutional.




Irrelevent. Whether or not that's true, the case is they exist now.



Irrelevent. The state cannot restrict privileges or rights without due process, meaning the state has to have a compelling reason to restrict privileges to one group.



That may be, but their rulings still set precedent until otherwise overruled. How does that change my point?



Seven of the nine Supreme Court Justices were elected by republican presidents.

Six of the seven Justices on the Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts were elected by republicans, including Margaret Marshall, the chief justice and the person who wrote the decision on the Goodrich v. Dept. of Health case, were appointed by Republican governors.

But when all else fails, feel free to blame the liberals.



Whether or not the "masses" accept it is irrelevent. The definition has changed of the centuries.



Then why bring it up at all. YOU were the one worried about definitions, not I.



The bible is irrelevent. Marriage was not a religious institution initially.



Separate but equal is unconstitutional.



I'm sorry. Are you a constitutional scholar?
 
I have 3 kiRAB. I'm well aware of ALL of the tolls and sacrifices.

Is a 7 month fetus partially delivered having its brains sucked out appealing to you? :rolleyes: As I've stated in the past, I think that the states should set their own limits on abortion based on whatever criteria they chose to use. That's the Constitutional thing to do.

Ah, to be thought of as a sex object.......I can only dream....... :)

No, in my world women are respected enough to not become sperm receptacles for undesirables.

I'm well aware of that. I'm the guy who posts the abortion data, remember?

I don't blame an illegitimate child for the sins of its parents. The child had no voice in their decisions.
I would only have to preach mandatory pregnancy if I didn't preach mandatory responsibility. Since I preach responsibility, I don't have to preach mandatory pregnancy.
 
The same George Washington that rode hours each way EVERY Sunday in order to attend church. Here's an excerpt from GW's last will and testament"
Being heartily sorry from the bottom of my heart for my sins past, most humbly desiring forgiveness of the same from Almighty God, my Savior and Redeemer in Whom and bye the merits of Jesus Christ, I trust and believe assuredly to be saved and to have full remission and forgiveness of all my sins."

Sure sounRAB like a heathen to me, how about you? :rolleyes:

Let's try a John Adam's quote
 
Evolution, Justice, Fairness, and the people are the authority.

People have (or should have) the liberty to do what they want UP TO THE POINT WHERE IT HURTS SOMEONE ELSE. Gay people marrying doesn't HURT someone else and in fact, discriminating against them hurts them.

There are many reasons that family members can't marry each other (not the least of which is 2-headed baby syndrome). But regardless of that, you are talking about such an extreme, improbable example that we need not even deal with it here. We don't (or at least shouldn't) make laws to deal with the 1 in 1,000,000,000,000 example. We deal with society as a whole. Gays are 5%-10% of the population and simply want to pair off (which seems to be the 'excepted' way to do it) like 'normal' people and live in peace. That sure doesn't sound evil or wrong to me.
 
The fallacy of appealing to tradition, as if tradition alone makes something correct or just. However, they never have to change their definition of marriage, as their church defines it, unless they want to. Religious freedom is important to both sides of the debate. By the way, how many legal Christian church marriages do you believe occur in countries such as China, where Christianity is oppressed?



No, gays can't marry someone of their choice.



Nope, equal rights.



It's like a broken record, or scratched CD. You are just trying to divert attention away from the fact that you don't have an argument against gay marriage. If my only argument against any type of marriage, were all red herrings, I'd be in trouble.
 
You need to take the time to go back and read some of the transcripts of the trials................Never mind you still would not believe it........ :rolleyes:
 
Umm - I did not quote that part as it was the part Hunter already alluded to. It is in the first chapter of Romans. It is actually the paragraph before he lists all the wicked ones who don't deserve the kingdon. He then goes into the paragragh I posted. I would also like to point out that I never said Romans didn't comdemn homosexuality. It condemns many things. I simply was pointing out that "hating the fags" wasn't the point of Romans, and it isn't. It says we are all sinners and none of us are worthy and we will only be saved by grace and mere humans are out of line to make any claims about how somebody else's sin is too great to be saved. Here we go - everyone's alluded to scriptures IN ORDER.


26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

1You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? 4Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leaRAB you toward repentance?

He then goes on to say that none of us are righteous we can only have faith and that each of us will be judged by what they know and their individual actions (for those of you who think God gives a whit about Dem vs. Rep).

Chapters 7 and 8 talk about how we are all struggling with sin and that sin leaRAB to death and that Christ is the only salvation from death. Granted the man talks in circles and goes round and round to get to that point. :)

He says this in Chapter 13
Love your neighbor as yourself." 10Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

Chapter 14
1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stanRAB or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.

13Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another.

17For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.

20Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food.

Granted Paul speaks of food above - but I think his lesson is bigger. It is about misusung faith to judge when it is not your place, and allowing the judgement and those differences to tear us apart.

How worthy or unworthy a homosexual may be to God is none of your business. Loving your brothers and not doing them harm is. Anti-gay rhetoric, the denying of rights, the condemnation of them with Bible - all does harm.
 
Removing discrimination and prejudice against gay people in the law, is at the height of morality, at least from a Canadian perspective. That's why we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That's why we are officially multicultural and officially billingual. Valuing diversity is Canadian morality.
 
You need to take up your argument with the US Suoreme Court, they are the ones who have stated that marriage is a fundamental human right.



If it walks like a marriage, talks like a marriage, and looks like a marriage, why call it something else?



Prior to the 1970s, most laws in this country did not specify gender in their marriage laws. It was only after the Hawaii case back in the early 90s when most states rushed to define marriage as a "union between one man and one woman."



Actually, no. Rights and "privileges" cannot simple be taken away without due process. The "state" must justify denying a right or taking a privilege away from a group.



I repeat: the US Supreme Court has said otherwise.



Hasn't changed my point at all. If I am married to Joe, Joe will be my husband, since he would be a married man. I would be his husband, since I would be a married man. How has the definition changed?



Since gay couples are already allowed to adopt in most places, what is the problem here?

Also, there are many heterosexual couples that adopt as well. Is the fact that they aren't biological an issue for you as well?



I repeat: the US Supreme Court has said otherwise.



Not into creationism. And marriage was not a religious institution until about the 12th century.



Agreed. But our issue isn't with churches (at least not in relation to marriage).



Public accomodation and fundamental human rights are two entirely differrent issues. If you cannot see that, then I do not know what else to tell you.
 
I have tried to make you wise to the fact that you can't tell adult sexual orientation by looking at the sex of child molestation victims. You don't want to be educated, and there is nothing more I can do.
 
Yeah I love Bush so much that I would have voted for Leiberman if he would have gotten your party's nomination.........Sadly because he is a moderate and your party is controlled by far left wing liberals like you and Hydra the man had no chance to get the nomination..........
 
Back
Top