Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No personal religion about it . The word of the one true God says homosexuality is a sin.
And?
What does that have to do with equal access to marriage laws?
You obviously didnt read the cited supporting case law:
Homosexuals indeed constitute a specific class of persons, entitled to 14th Amendment equal access, as determined by the Supreme Court.
Actually my argument is that the courts cannot overturn a referendum by the people, as they did in CA, without a tremendously good and clear reason, which they don't have.
Your argument has no merit and exhibits your ignorance of the law.
Its incumbent upon the state via legislative action or referendum to provide a compelling reason and evidence to preempt a given right, not the courts. The courts are merely the neutral venue in which an issue is reviewed.
There is no given right for two same sex people to marry. That seems to be what you're missing here.
Just a thought, when you are trying to accomplish something that has Never been the Norm, and you are trying to win over support, sugar works better than vinegar. We are not Idiots. Misinformation tends to do more harm than good, when exposed. I'd personally support Civil Unions, as an equivalent to Marriage, giving you Equal footing, legally. My only problem is with you using the word Marriage, which to Me means One Man, One Woman. I view the use of it that way, a corruption of the meaning. Pick Any Other word you want, have a National Contest, make one up.
When you truly read and understand the Bible, you know that all that you just posted are lies. Keep it up, comedy is a funny thing.Then you thought wrong. Read leviticus 20:13. Also Jesus spoke about sexual immorality, which homosexuality is.Really?
I thought the only "sins" were those laid out in the 7 Noahide Commandments or the 10 Commandments.
Neither of them say "thou shalt not be gay".
Try again.
Here's something interesting for you to read from a theological scholar site.......
* Of 32,000 verses in the Bible, only five directly mention homosexuality.
* The Qur'an only directly mentions homosexuality once.
* Leviticus, the book of the Bible which stipulates death for homosexuality, requires the same punishment for adultery, pre-marital sex, disobedient children and blasphemy.
* The Biblical Jesus does not condemn homosexuality.
* The destruction of the Biblical city of Sodom was due to their mistreatment of strangers.
* The Bible never condemns same sex marriage.
* The Biblical David and Jonathan had a formal same-sex union.
* 'Traditional marriage' in the Bible includes polygamy.
* No known sacred text forbids same sex marriage.
* Very few sacred texts even mention homosexuality.
* Hindu and other far eastern sacred texts do not condemn homosexuality.
* Homosexuality is not unnatural, it is practised by hundreds of species of animals.
Internet Sacred Text Archive Home
Two wrongs don't make it right. The episcopalian church is wrong.And?
What does that have to do with equal access to marriage laws?
You obviously didnt read the cited supporting case law:
Homosexuals indeed constitute a specific class of persons, entitled to 14th Amendment equal access, as determined by the Supreme Court.
Your argument has no merit and exhibits your ignorance of the law.
Its incumbent upon the state via legislative action or referendum to provide a compelling reason and evidence to preempt a given right, not the courts. The courts are merely the neutral venue in which an issue is reviewed.
There is no given right for two same sex people to marry. That seems to be what you're missing here.
If the Federal Government extends benefits to straight married couples who get married in a Mormon church then they also need to extend benefits to gay couples married by the Episcopalian church. That's what you're missing here.
Two wrongs don't make it right. The episcopalian church is wrong.There is no given right for two same sex people to marry. That seems to be what you're missing here.
If the Federal Government extends benefits to straight married couples who get married in a Mormon church then they also need to extend benefits to gay couples married by the Episcopalian church. That's what you're missing here.
Two wrongs don't make it right. The episcopalian church is wrong.There is no given right for two same sex people to marry. That seems to be what you're missing here.
If the Federal Government extends benefits to straight married couples who get married in a Mormon church then they also need to extend benefits to gay couples married by the Episcopalian church. That's what you're missing here.
Supreme court is wrong, gays are not a class of people. Gay is a sexual preference, period.
The supreme court fell for the lying scheme of the sinning gays.
Two wrongs don't make it right. The episcopalian church is wrong.If the Federal Government extends benefits to straight married couples who get married in a Mormon church then they also need to extend benefits to gay couples married by the Episcopalian church. That's what you're missing here.
Two Wrongs?
You realize you just said that:
(a) It was wrong for the federal government to recognize as Civilly Married a different-sex couple.
and
(b) It was wrong for the federal government to recognize as Civilly Married a same-sex couple.
>>>>
My religious argument doesn't fail, it is based on the Bible, which trumps man's sinfulness every time.Two wrongs don't make it right. The episcopalian church is wrong.If the Federal Government extends benefits to straight married couples who get married in a Mormon church then they also need to extend benefits to gay couples married by the Episcopalian church. That's what you're missing here.
Oh please.... the old "My religion is better than your religion"?
That's the reason why your religious argument fails every time.
Just a thought, when you are trying to accomplish something that has Never been the Norm, and you are trying to win over support, sugar works better than vinegar. We are not Idiots. Misinformation tends to do more harm than good, when exposed. I'd personally support Civil Unions, as an equivalent to Marriage, giving you Equal footing, legally. My only problem is with you using the word Marriage, which to Me means One Man, One Woman. I view the use of it that way, a corruption of the meaning. Pick Any Other word you want, have a National Contest, make one up.
How about this;
Instead of the government overstretching its arms and defining marriage for us, how about the government will only be in the business of granting two consenting adults (straight or gay) who want to be recognized legally as "a couple" a civil union. This union will grant the couple all of the traditional legal benefits a married couple today enjoys under the law - ie allowing them to file taxes together, access to one another's health care records, access to employment benefits, access to one another's wills, ability to make medical decisions for each other - it just will no longer be called a "marriage" from a legal standpoint.
Next, the term "marriage" will be solely be left up to the church or religion or spiritual group of the couple to define. If the couple is Catholic, and the Catholic church will not perform a marriage on the couple because they're gay, then too bad - the couple is SOL. Go to a new church.
I think this would work perfectly fine. Problem solved?
Then they are not a church of God.Just a thought, when you are trying to accomplish something that has Never been the Norm, and you are trying to win over support, sugar works better than vinegar. We are not Idiots. Misinformation tends to do more harm than good, when exposed. I'd personally support Civil Unions, as an equivalent to Marriage, giving you Equal footing, legally. My only problem is with you using the word Marriage, which to Me means One Man, One Woman. I view the use of it that way, a corruption of the meaning. Pick Any Other word you want, have a National Contest, make one up.
How about this;
Instead of the government overstretching its arms and defining marriage for us, how about the government will only be in the business of granting two consenting adults (straight or gay) who want to be recognized legally as "a couple" a civil union. This union will grant the couple all of the traditional legal benefits a married couple today enjoys under the law - ie allowing them to file taxes together, access to one another's health care records, access to employment benefits, access to one another's wills, ability to make medical decisions for each other - it just will no longer be called a "marriage" from a legal standpoint.
Next, the term "marriage" will be solely be left up to the church or religion or spiritual group of the couple to define. If the couple is Catholic, and the Catholic church will not perform a marriage on the couple because they're gay, then too bad - the couple is SOL. Go to a new church.
I think this would work perfectly fine. Problem solved?
Sounds like a perfect solution! Gays don't need the Catholic church. There are plenty of churches around which will marry gay couples if they decide they want a religious ceremony.
My religious argument doesn't fail, it is based on the Bible, which trumps man's sinfulness every time.Two wrongs don't make it right. The episcopalian church is wrong.
Oh please.... the old "My religion is better than your religion"?
That's the reason why your religious argument fails every time.
Then they are not a church of God.How about this;
Instead of the government overstretching its arms and defining marriage for us, how about the government will only be in the business of granting two consenting adults (straight or gay) who want to be recognized legally as "a couple" a civil union. This union will grant the couple all of the traditional legal benefits a married couple today enjoys under the law - ie allowing them to file taxes together, access to one another's health care records, access to employment benefits, access to one another's wills, ability to make medical decisions for each other - it just will no longer be called a "marriage" from a legal standpoint.
Next, the term "marriage" will be solely be left up to the church or religion or spiritual group of the couple to define. If the couple is Catholic, and the Catholic church will not perform a marriage on the couple because they're gay, then too bad - the couple is SOL. Go to a new church.
I think this would work perfectly fine. Problem solved?
Sounds like a perfect solution! Gays don't need the Catholic church. There are plenty of churches around which will marry gay couples if they decide they want a religious ceremony.
Constitution based on Christian principals. Your argument fails.My religious argument doesn't fail, it is based on the Bible, which trumps man's sinfulness every time.Oh please.... the old "My religion is better than your religion"?
That's the reason why your religious argument fails every time.
In this country, laws are based on the Constitution, which is why your religious argument fails.
Then they are not a church of God.
Constitution based on Christian principals. Your argument fails.My religious argument doesn't fail, it is based on the Bible, which trumps man's sinfulness every time.
In this country, laws are based on the Constitution, which is why your religious argument fails.
And?
What does that have to do with equal access to marriage laws?
You obviously didnt read the cited supporting case law:
Homosexuals indeed constitute a specific class of persons, entitled to 14th Amendment equal access, as determined by the Supreme Court.
Your argument has no merit and exhibits your ignorance of the law.
Its incumbent upon the state via legislative action or referendum to provide a compelling reason and evidence to preempt a given right, not the courts. The courts are merely the neutral venue in which an issue is reviewed.
There is no given right for two same sex people to marry. That seems to be what you're missing here.
If the Federal Government extends benefits to straight married couples who get married in a Mormon church then they also need to extend benefits to gay couples married by the Episcopalian church. That's what you're missing here.
Constitution based on Christian principals. Your argument fails.In this country, laws are based on the Constitution, which is why your religious argument fails.
The Constitution allows for any and all religions to exist. Including the ones which marry gay people.
Really?
I thought the only "sins" were those laid out in the 7 Noahide Commandments or the 10 Commandments.
Neither of them say "thou shalt not be gay".
Try again.
