tigerbob
Increasingly jaded.
- Oct 27, 2007
- 6,225
- 1,150
There's no exclusion, as there's no "heterosexual" mentioned in the first place.
So gays can be included?
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.
There's no exclusion, as there's no "heterosexual" mentioned in the first place.
In what? Not in marriage, which has a specific definition, specific to men and women.
But certainly in everything else that isn't defined by heterosexual components.
So long as they don't call it a marriage.
Do we have to subsidize their "gayrige"? Because if we do then no, they can't do that either.
Do we have to subsidize their "gayrige"? Because if we do then no, they can't do that either.
We already know you are against all marriage ... no need to repeat it ...
Wait...what marriages are being subsidized?
I've been married and I never received any subsidy...
Oh, well...you can get subsidized for a lot of things. Including being a single parent.
I really don't give much of a shit about that.
Do we have to subsidize their "gayrige"? Because if we do then no, they can't do that either.
We already know you are against all marriage ... no need to repeat it ...
You cannot subsidize their marriage because that affronts Christians, who are the majority and sorry but this isn't a nation of individuals, groups have some say in what happens.
We already know you are against all marriage ... no need to repeat it ...
You cannot subsidize their marriage because that affronts Christians, who are the majority and sorry but this isn't a nation of individuals, groups have some say in what happens.
For those Christians that object, they generally object to the term marriage, not to the idea of equal rights / benefits. Rights and benefits derive from the State, not the church.
Do we have to subsidize their "gayrige"? Because if we do then no, they can't do that either.
We already know you are against all marriage ... no need to repeat it ...
You cannot subsidize their marriage because that affronts Christians, who are the majority and sorry but this isn't a nation of individuals, groups have some say in what happens.
You cannot subsidize their marriage because that affronts Christians, who are the majority and sorry but this isn't a nation of individuals, groups have some say in what happens.
For those Christians that object, they generally object to the term marriage, not to the idea of equal rights / benefits. Rights and benefits derive from the State, not the church.
Wrong... The Conflict Between Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty
Representative of most Evangelical views.
It's about the right of the church to deny homosexuals employment, and to not pay for immoral activities. In gay marriage states it is already happening that churches are being forced to go against their morals.
For those Christians that object, they generally object to the term marriage, not to the idea of equal rights / benefits. Rights and benefits derive from the State, not the church.
Wrong... The Conflict Between Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty
Representative of most Evangelical views.
It's about the right of the church to deny homosexuals employment, and to not pay for immoral activities. In gay marriage states it is already happening that churches are being forced to go against their morals.
*eye roll* That's just lame. Sorry, but the churches are not forced into marrying anyone and some have denied performing the rights to couples not in their congregation legally and no one has complained, they just go to someone who is already willing or a Justice of the Peace which is not religiously aligned.