hip hop bunny hop

lawl, mojo this doesn't reflect well on you

__________________
Have mercy on the poor.

Burning Down

Yeah, but I'm not exactly sure where in the Bible it says that marriage CANNOT be between two men or two women. I know the statement in his notepad implies that Christianity doesn't support gay marriage, but the Bible doesn't actually explicitly state that it's prohibited.

Also, these religious nuts need to understand the concept that the Church is separated from the State. If the CHURCH ruled the USA (as in, a total theocracy), sure, it would be a completely different story. But since the government is completely secular and should not be affiliated with any particular religion (or side with one), then who can legally marry whom is their call, not the church's call. I think they are afraid that their moral beliefs will be eradicated or that they will not be allowed to have them, but that's not true.

Same-sex marriage is legal in Canada and has been for awhile, and guess what? We haven't gone to shit. So I'm not really sure what right wing Americans are afraid of here. The planet's not going to explode if this law is passed.

The guy can't even spell WOMAN ffs.

I think he's being objective here. But your statement could mean that if he supports the content of the articles, that it doesn't reflect well on him, or, if he doesn't support the articles, that reflects poorly on him as well.

The Batlord

It's HHBH. He puts out lazy one liners meant to get a response so that he can turn a thread into a long drawn out debate that he gets to be at the center of. I wouldn't take him seriously.

__________________

katsy

Even if the bible did offer a very detailed guide about marriage it should not matter. Separation of church and state is in place for a very good reason; America is not a theocracy, as you pointed out. Religious beliefs and an individual's interpretations of a book written by 'men' thousands of years ago should have no bearing, ever, on any practice. As long as no one is being hurt and the relationship/bond/marriage is between two consenting adults, then it is a-ok. (And no else's business; the slippery-slope argument is a crock of ****)

Just because an individual decides to accept man-made rules and guidelines based on religious/personal beliefs does not mean they have the right to impose those beliefs on everyone. Especially, when those beliefs are preventing individuals from equal rights and treatment.

I agree with you BD, and I hope the US will get on board with Canada. I couldn't pass the opportunity to expound my thoughts on the matter. I plan to devote a good bit of my career to the study and spreading knowledge about the LGBT community, particularly about the modern family.

__________________
Split the Lark-- and you'll find the Music - Emily Dickinson

Mojo

Care to explain why?

__________________

Last.FM | Echoes and Dust

hip hop bunny hop

The strawman issue aside, you should be ashamed to read this "buzzfeed" nonsense. Then there's the content:







Truly, painful



&



Unilinear theory of history

__________________
Have mercy on the poor.

Circe

Great assertions there. It really brought out the non-existence of your coherent argument. If you really want to play at that game...



Personal preferences, should have no sway on the interactions of others.



Religious opinion, invalid reason to affect the laws of a secular country.



Religious opinion once again. Additionally the idiot is making insinuations about the abilities of same-sex parents without any evidence.



Extremely poor spelling and grammar, a completely roundabout point that is still religious.



Ah, the old "Adam and Steve" argument. Look out of the window and see how much we've kept to the standards of Adam and Eve, as if they actually existed anyway. It's like the king of reactionary arguments.



It is? And I suppose the overwhelming evidence of homosexuality being a natural occurrence should just be ignored?



Doesn't provide any reason to oppose gay marriage, for a start.



I don't see how gay marriage is somehow going to wipe one sex off the planet.



I tried to decipher it as best as I could and as far as I could tell it's the previous argument about gay parents that has no credible backing.



Err... Right... So I guess he magicked Adam and Eve into existence in the missionary position?

I've got ten more ready if you want to play!

Paul Smeenus

@Circe, outstanding post

hip hop bunny hop

Let me try the long form. What is not being debated is whether or not same-sex couples have the right to a religious ceremony (they do), whether whether they can enter into binding legal contract in regards to inheritance of property (they can), or hospital visitation rights (which, again, they can set up)... what is being discussed is whether or not same sex couples should receive the same subsidies as traditional marriages.

By subsidizing marriage we are giving preference to one form of relationship to all others. So, yes, personal preferences are very much a part of the debate (if not the entirety of it), and, yes, it does effect other people, as other people are paying for the subsidy.

The traditional argument for subsidizing marriage has been that everyone else in society see's a benefit. Whether it be improved outcomes of children, the higher fertility rate of married couples, etc. The question, then, is what benefit does society see from further expanding this subsidy to same sex couples?

__________________
Have mercy on the poor.

Neapolitan

Not everyone has "the right to a religious ceremony" (i.e. e.g. marriage). If a person is previously married he or she does not have the right to a religious ceremony, because of the pre-existing marriage. This is the case for most religious groups, unless you are talking about some CLDS sect in Utah, or some islamic sect that practice polygamy.

__________________