I'm not going to have sex with you, Kool -- no matter how many times you ask.
I'm not going to protest for gay rights. I'm not going to picket that against gay rights either though.
I guess I don't really care either way. Marriage or no marriage, they're still bumping each other in the rear. Not sure what that has to do with me.
No one is trying to attack the religious value of the word marriage, the Church/other religions can still define marriage however it wants to. It's the Church's fault for being narcissistic enough to think that gays wanting to get married actually have a hidden agenda that involves the Church.
Gays have never attacked the Church/religious people, it's ALWAYS been the other way around.
1. I am atheist. I doubt I would be parading a Bible around and beating my chest about it.
2. Your link has nothing to do with "as originally written" as that term implies there is a modified version. You also said "was pretty ed up" meaning "in the past". That also implies a modified version.
You said "the cons ution as originally written was a pretty ed up piece of do ent".
You are now linking me to a site that suggests changes to the existing Articles of the Cons ution.
I think HIV rates are higher in the gay community....listen I will say I'm hypocritical only in the sense that I'm into pretty lesbians only...I think ugly lesbians are just as bad as male gays...it's disgusting...sorry but that's just the way it is....why?
Because there's a theory that a girl being with a girl enhances what the other gender desires in her: femininity; whereas a boy being with a boy does NOT enhance his masculinity among the opposite sex and in straight circles. Hence the disparity between girl/girl vs boy/boy relations.
You're pretty fragile tbh.
Marriage ceased being a religious concept when the federal and local governments began to recognize it. The implied separation of church and state affairs should automatically kill any religious banter concerning ownership of the term "marriage" since the church has never had a problem with the federal government's recognition of the supposed religiously owned concept.
Do you believe that it is all right to own slaves?
Why do you chose to think about it? It's not like two gays you've never met getting married is gonna change your life at all.
They want to feel normal in society, who doesn't? That's why it's completely illogical to think sexuality is a choice. Sans the weird people who act gay for attention, no one would chose to be different and be discriminated against.
With 60% of his posts about sexuality and 40% of his posts about Kobe. Is there even a question that koolaid man is a got? Swords what do you think?
I think he's looking for a date
Honestly I don't give a what s do because I don't even believe in god but I have to agree with you on that. Marriage is a "holy union" and gayness is pretty much expressly forbidden in the main religions
No one is asking the church to recognize it. No one is asking you to recognize it.
The Westboro Baptist Church has caused countless people some "Mental distress" and unlike this situation with Gays actually intended to cause mental distress. The government isn't forcing the Baptist Church to recognize them as real Baptists, but they have every right to call themselves Baptists and operate freely as long as they're not causing anyone any tangible harm.
ohh yeah...then why does marriage mean so much to gays? you are being accepted as equals by being protected under the law and given all the rights and benefits of a married person...all the religious society is asking is that you back off the marriage definition that offends the Biblical way of life..Listen if you want to model your life off the Bible then stop being gay and stop trying to desecrate the Bible by rewriting it..it is what it is and it has no room for gay marriage...get mad at God not those of us who oppose it...
If America really was founded on "Christian beliefs", public schools would teach kids that the Earth is flat and that the Sun rotates around the Earth.
It doesn't matter how the government defined it. If you are going to allow that as evidence, you must then accept any new decisions the government makes on their definition.
Your claim is that marriage is a religious ins ution.
"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to pe ion the Government for a redress of grievances." -1st Amendment
The federal government recognizes and has established laws that recognize the marriage of individuals. If marriage is a religious ins ution, then the 1st Amendment is being violated.
So, you must fall back on the concept that, traditionally, the concept of marriage is a personal vow between two people, a man and a woman, to spend the rest of their lives together. Whether or not they uphold those vows is irrelevant to the conversation.
Since it's a personal vow, there's no tangible reason that two adults of any sex should not be allowed to make the same vows and call it marriage if they so choose. It's wrong to deny rights to people just because you don't agree with their sexual orientation (as long as it's two consenting human adults).
So, if you want to shield the word "marriage" from outside use, you have to first make it no longer recognized by the governing bodies that govern us all, and have it be only recognized by religious authority.
The most notable framers of the Cons ution were Deists, not Christians.
Koolaid is afraid someone is going to turn him out.
It's a myth that the religious right keeps pushing.
There's no mention of Jesus in the Cons ution.
And honestly it's not even recognized as real marriage, it's given the adjective "same-sex" or "gay" implying that it's different than normal marriage. Just like two guys ing each other in the ass is referred to as "gay sex". No one thinks being gay is a societal norm, and as long as only around 10% of the population is gay, it'll never be considered a societal norm.
It's a win-win situation, unless you're a god-fearing zealot.
Even if you're a staunch phobe, what's not to like about less compe ion for the females?
It's a measure of population control too (if you choose to look at it that way).
Unless you have latent sexual desires you're trying desperately to suppress, this shouldn't bother you.
Why does marriage mean so much to straights?
how does this got constantly get so many replies?
In my first sentence. Religious zealotry.
If they want to be slaves...some people feel a certain protection in being slaves...
God didn't ins ute slavery...man did....but the record shows God did ins ute marriage between a man and a woman because he created them as such...Man and Woman...Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve...if you beleive in Atheism and Evolution then you have no basis for marriage at all...if you beleive in Allah or Jesus then their is no way gay marriage is acceptable...
I will break it down it for you in simpler terms...rejecting gay marriage is similar to rejecting polygamy or multiple spouses...in the US it's more than just a cultural protection but a legal one...so it's not the sex that's rejected per se it's the belief that gays want to marry so they can mock marriage and tear it down...I think all of this talk is the work of the devil tbh...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
