A Reasonable Solution To The Gay Marriage Debate

[WinterBorn]

Yes the exact same ones that voted too appoint Congressional Chaplains of the Christian faith. Yes those founders.

And since those Founders added the 1st Amendment, it is clearly unconstitutional to have laws based solely on any religion or religious doctrines.

So, as we have said many times, you will have to come up with a secular reason for not allowing gays to marry.

If morals is Biblical sue me. There is no protect rights for abnormal behaviors.

No one said anything about your morals. What we are discussing is whether it is constitutional to legislate morals based on your religious beliefs.

Now, if no one is harmed and it does not effect anyone else, why would you care?

Plus, no one is asking for any protected rights.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And since those Founders added the 1st Amendment, it is clearly unconstitutional to have laws based solely on any religion or religious doctrines.

So, as we have said many times, you will have to come up with a secular reason for not allowing gays to marry.

If morals is Biblical sue me. There is no protect rights for abnormal behaviors.

No one said anything about your morals. What we are discussing is whether it is constitutional to legislate morals based on your religious beliefs.

Now, if no one is harmed and it does not effect anyone else, why would you care?

Plus, no one is asking for any protected rights.

No one said anything about your morals.

Nor did I.

Now, if no one is harmed and it does not effect anyone else, why would you care?

No one is harmed when a father wants to have sex with his daughter or if they want to get married but they can't do that can they?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Its easy to make that claim.

King James version.

Am I typing too fast for you? What I posted is not about the Bible. It is about the actions of the Catholic Church. If its not in the Bible, that is fine. But it does not change anything in my argument.

Maybe I am typing to fast for you. I said you bring up religion I will bring up the Bible Do you understand now? After all the Bible (New Testament) is the history book of the Christian faith.

 

[WinterBorn]

King James version.

Am I typing too fast for you? What I posted is not about the Bible. It is about the actions of the Catholic Church. If its not in the Bible, that is fine. But it does not change anything in my argument.

Maybe I am typing to fast for you. I said you bring up religion I will bring up the Bible Do you understand now? After all the Bible (New Testament) is the history book of the Christian faith.

Then please show me, in the Bible, where there is anything about selling indulgences so rich people could get into heaven.

And please show me, in the Bible, where there is approval for moving priests around to cover-up their molesting young boys.



Those are actions of the church, and yet they are not based on the bible. So your claim that any mention of the actions of the catholic church are automatically mentions of religion or the Bible is obviously wrong.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Am I typing too fast for you? What I posted is not about the Bible. It is about the actions of the Catholic Church. If its not in the Bible, that is fine. But it does not change anything in my argument.

Maybe I am typing to fast for you. I said you bring up religion I will bring up the Bible Do you understand now? After all the Bible (New Testament) is the history book of the Christian faith.

Then please show me, in the Bible, where there is anything about selling indulgences so rich people could get into heaven.

And please show me, in the Bible, where there is approval for moving priests around to cover-up their molesting young boys.



Those are actions of the church, and yet they are not based on the bible. So your claim that any mention of the actions of the catholic church are automatically mentions of religion or the Bible is obviously wrong.

And please show me, in the Bible, where there is approval for moving priests around to cover-up their molesting young boys.

You're judging Christians by Catholic standards? Catholics who pray to idols? Interesting.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It's the predominate Religion in America.

And?

Religion isn’t even relevant to the issue of equal access to the law.

It is when it pertains to the founders.

Nonsense. It has nothing to do with the Founders nor the Constitution’s mandate that all citizens enjoy equal access to the law.

 

[WinterBorn]

Maybe I am typing to fast for you. I said you bring up religion I will bring up the Bible Do you understand now? After all the Bible (New Testament) is the history book of the Christian faith.

Then please show me, in the Bible, where there is anything about selling indulgences so rich people could get into heaven.

And please show me, in the Bible, where there is approval for moving priests around to cover-up their molesting young boys.



Those are actions of the church, and yet they are not based on the bible. So your claim that any mention of the actions of the catholic church are automatically mentions of religion or the Bible is obviously wrong.

And please show me, in the Bible, where there is approval for moving priests around to cover-up their molesting young boys.

You're judging Christians by Catholic standards? Catholics who pray to idols? Interesting.

I didn't judge anyone. You do that well enough for both of us.

But since the research quoted was based on information concerning that Catholic Church, I am using that as an example to show why my link was not bringing up religion.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Then please show me, in the Bible, where there is anything about selling indulgences so rich people could get into heaven.

And please show me, in the Bible, where there is approval for moving priests around to cover-up their molesting young boys.



Those are actions of the church, and yet they are not based on the bible. So your claim that any mention of the actions of the catholic church are automatically mentions of religion or the Bible is obviously wrong.

And please show me, in the Bible, where there is approval for moving priests around to cover-up their molesting young boys.

You're judging Christians by Catholic standards? Catholics who pray to idols? Interesting.

I didn't judge anyone. You do that well enough for both of us.

But since the research quoted was based on information concerning that Catholic Church, I am using that as an example to show why my link was not bringing up religion.

I didn't judge anyone

Smart ass yes you did. You're talking about what Catholics do am I to assume you are saying the Catholic church speaks for all Christian denominations? If not Why mention what Catholics do when they do not speak for Protestants?

 

[BDBoop]

Maybe I am typing to fast for you. I said you bring up religion I will bring up the Bible Do you understand now? After all the Bible (New Testament) is the history book of the Christian faith.

Then please show me, in the Bible, where there is anything about selling indulgences so rich people could get into heaven.

And please show me, in the Bible, where there is approval for moving priests around to cover-up their molesting young boys.



Those are actions of the church, and yet they are not based on the bible. So your claim that any mention of the actions of the catholic church are automatically mentions of religion or the Bible is obviously wrong.

And please show me, in the Bible, where there is approval for moving priests around to cover-up their molesting young boys.

You're judging Christians by Catholic standards? Catholics who pray to idols? Interesting.

Rut-roh.

 

[WinterBorn]

You're judging Christians by Catholic standards? Catholics who pray to idols? Interesting.

I didn't judge anyone. You do that well enough for both of us.

But since the research quoted was based on information concerning that Catholic Church, I am using that as an example to show why my link was not bringing up religion.

I didn't judge anyone

Smart ass yes you did. You're talking about what Catholics do am I to assume you are saying the Catholic church speaks for all Christian denominations? If not Why mention what Catholics do when they do not speak for Protestants?

I mentioned it because it is a clear proof that the definition of marriage has NOT been 1 man & 1 woman for thousands of years. That is all it means. I did not bring up religion. I did not advocate for catholics of protestants. I simply shot down one of the excuses neocons use.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Then please show me, in the Bible, where there is anything about selling indulgences so rich people could get into heaven.

And please show me, in the Bible, where there is approval for moving priests around to cover-up their molesting young boys.



Those are actions of the church, and yet they are not based on the bible. So your claim that any mention of the actions of the catholic church are automatically mentions of religion or the Bible is obviously wrong.

And please show me, in the Bible, where there is approval for moving priests around to cover-up their molesting young boys.

You're judging Christians by Catholic standards? Catholics who pray to idols? Interesting.

Rut-roh.

Reminds me of Jimmy Swaggart back in the day when he’d launch into the Catholics for not being ‘real Christians.’

 

[BDBoop]

You're judging Christians by Catholic standards? Catholics who pray to idols? Interesting.

Rut-roh.

Reminds me of Jimmy Swaggart back in the day when he’d launch into the Catholics for not being ‘real Christians.’

I know! I feel like "Dude. Next time you say something like that, give a girl some warning so I can stand way the hell over there."

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I didn't judge anyone. You do that well enough for both of us.

But since the research quoted was based on information concerning that Catholic Church, I am using that as an example to show why my link was not bringing up religion.

I didn't judge anyone

Smart ass yes you did. You're talking about what Catholics do am I to assume you are saying the Catholic church speaks for all Christian denominations? If not Why mention what Catholics do when they do not speak for Protestants?

I mentioned it because it is a clear proof that the definition of marriage has NOT been 1 man & 1 woman for thousands of years. That is all it means. I did not bring up religion. I did not advocate for catholics of protestants. I simply shot down one of the excuses neocons use.

HUH NO!!!!!!!!!! Yes you did bring up religion stop lying.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Then please show me, in the Bible, where there is anything about selling indulgences so rich people could get into heaven.

And please show me, in the Bible, where there is approval for moving priests around to cover-up their molesting young boys.



Those are actions of the church, and yet they are not based on the bible. So your claim that any mention of the actions of the catholic church are automatically mentions of religion or the Bible is obviously wrong.

And please show me, in the Bible, where there is approval for moving priests around to cover-up their molesting young boys.

You're judging Christians by Catholic standards? Catholics who pray to idols? Interesting.

Rut-roh.

Why do you think Protestants broke away from Catholicism?

 

[koshergrl]

The gay marriage issue has never been about equal rights, marriage nor religion. It is about gay activists’ desire to change society's basic institutions out of the frustration that they are not included.

The proof is the term “gay marriage”. “Gay marriage” is an oxymoron. It is an attempt to “redefine” the word marriage. During all of recorded history, the word marriage (in every language) has been defined as the union between a man and a woman (or multiple women in some cases). Marriage has always been the foundation for families and it provides the means to care for the resulting children. Although there are some childless marriages, there would no necessity for the legal institution of marriage if not for the probability of raising children. Virtually every civilization in recorded history has instituted marriage to insure that both parents are legally responsible for raising their children.

Most all Americans that I know, whether conservative or liberal, whether agnostic or religious, are not opposed to civil unions between consenting adults. Civil unions give gays all of the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage without re-defining the word “marriage”. Many states, including California, currently have civil unions available for gay couples. Unfortunately, gay activists reject civil unions for no logical reason what-so-ever. Their reason is emotional, not logical. Gay activists claim that only the word “marriage” would give them true equality. IMHO, this is absurd. The only objection that most Americans have to gay marriage is the redefinition of the WORD “marriage”.

Therefore I suggest a reasonable compromise. Instead of re-defining the word marriage to include gays, we should create a new word to define gay marriage. I propose the word “garriage”. Gay couples can get “garried” while straight straight couples can get “married”. Many languages use different words for feminine and masculine genders. Some languages even assign genders for inanimate objects such as car or boat. In English we say him or her, he or she, count and countess, king and queen, etc. Since a gay union is technically different than straight union, there is no reason why we can’t use different words to define them.

Unfortunately gay activists will not accept this compromise under the guise of equality because they are unwilling to accept the fact that they ARE different in significant ways when it comes to marriage. They will compare using different words to define different unions as “separate but equal” which was a term used for segregation of blacks. This excuse is a ridiculous as saying it is not fair to differentiate between apples and oranges, men and women, or whisky and rum. Traditional marriage, as it has been defined for 5,000 years, IS different than gay unions. A different word to define gay unions is appropriate and very reasonable.

Lol..I tried this one, years ago.

It won't wash, because the objective isn't equality. The objective is to eliminate the traditional family unit, remove all structures that have historically protected pregnant women and children, and hand over to the state the complete responsibility for raising children...as well as determining how many children will, in fact, be raised.

 

[BDBoop]

You're judging Christians by Catholic standards? Catholics who pray to idols? Interesting.

Rut-roh.

Why do you think Protestants broke away from Catholicism?

/holds up cross

I do not want to be standing here if/when the Catholics on the board see this post.

 

[koshergrl]

Gay marriage affects no heterosexual marriage.
Heterosexuals fucked up their own marriages.

Ain't that the truth! That is why I laugh so hard at neocons claiming gay marriage will ruin marriage.

Actually, no.

The divorce rate, the disease rate, the rate of abuse, the abortion rate, and the child murder rate, as well as the overall crime rate, have increased exponentially since the advent of the "sexual revolution" and the teachings of Kinsey were brought to our children via "sex education".

I think we can attribute all those things directly to the sexual revolution. The promotion of promiscuity, the removal of the structures meant to protect the chastity and health of women and children, the relaxing of laws that punish those who prey upon them...all products of the sexual revolution.

 

[WinterBorn]

Smart ass yes you did. You're talking about what Catholics do am I to assume you are saying the Catholic church speaks for all Christian denominations? If not Why mention what Catholics do when they do not speak for Protestants?

I mentioned it because it is a clear proof that the definition of marriage has NOT been 1 man & 1 woman for thousands of years. That is all it means. I did not bring up religion. I did not advocate for catholics of protestants. I simply shot down one of the excuses neocons use.

HUH NO!!!!!!!!!! Yes you did bring up religion stop lying.

I guess this is what passes for debate in your world??

Once again, show me where the bible or religion approves of or advocates selling indulgences and/or covering up for pedophiles? Because the catholic church did those too.

So if I bring up the church selling indulgences, you would claim I brought up religion?

If I complained about how bad the traffic was when the baptist church up the street lets out, would you claim I was bringing up religon?

My post spoke only of historic actions of the catholic church. I did not judge whether they are right or wrong, in accordance with scripture, or even religious in nature. Just that the church once performed wedding rituals between men.

 

[koshergrl]

Isn't it an odd coincidence that the advent of the disease explosion, the divorce explosion, the child abuse explosion, and the de-criminalization of sexual perversion, including child sexual abuse...isn't it an amazing coincidence that all those things started to skyrocket in lock step with the Kinsey model of sex education?

Way to go!

 

[WinterBorn]

Isn't it an odd coincidence that the advent of the disease explosion, the divorce explosion, the child abuse explosion, and the de-criminalization of sexual perversion, including child sexual abuse...isn't it an amazing coincidence that all those things started to skyrocket in lock step with the Kinsey model of sex education?

Way to go!

So what would you suggest as a cure or correction?