Forgive me if I can't shed tears to the wedding ceremony of Doogie Howser and John Smith. Maybe the law's unequal, but if it makes the majority sick, it should be law, IMO.

 

That makes no sense. I don't see myself attending any civil marriage celebrations any time soon. There are a lot of things that are legal that I think are repulsive, namely obesity as a handicap, but the government must be just for everyone.

That makes no sense. I don't see myself attending any civil marriage celebrations any time soon. There are a lot of things that are legal that I think are repulsive, namely obesity as a handicap, but the government must be just for everyone.

 

On paper, but I think they should make a few exceptions.

Meanwhile, a petition is being circulated to change the name of the state to Connectabut.

 

Classic

That makes no sense. I don't see myself attending any civil marriage celebrations any time soon. There are a lot of things that are legal that I think are repulsive, namely obesity as a handicap, but the government must be just for everyone.

 

Obesity as a government defined handicap is far less repulsive than abortion on-demand

Obesity as a government defined handicap is far less repulsive than abortion on-demand

 

I agree w/ that. I'm really nervous about what is going to happen in regards to partial birth abortion and the like. Adoption is a beautiful option.

^ Agreed

According to who's definition? Here is another major point. The moral views of the majority have infringed on the rights of a politically powerless group, who's definition of marriage is different than what Christianity says it is.

 

You are making my point.

 

Should those who feel they should be able to marry 4-5 people be allowed to marry them. Who is to say that their view of marriage is wrong?

 

If you are going to get in to the debate that the moral views of the majority should never infringe on anyone, than their can be NO laws preventing ANY TYPE of marriage, EVER.

 

 

ANother issue to your point. Your argument for allowing is that their view of marriage should be allowed over my view of marriage.

 

Okay to go against a Christian's view of morals.

Not okay to go against a homosexual's view of morals.

Why is their view right?

You are making my point.

 

Should those who feel they should be able to marry 4-5 people be allowed to marry them. Who is to say that their view of marriage is wrong?

 

If you are going to get in to the debate that the moral views of the majority should never infringe on anyone, than their can be NO laws preventing ANY TYPE of marriage, EVER.

 

 

ANother issue to your point. Your argument for allowing is that their view of marriage should be allowed over my view of marriage.

 

Okay to go against a Christian's view of morals.

Not okay to go against a homosexual's view of morals.

Why is their view right?

 

 

Agreed.

You are making my point.

 

Should those who feel they should be able to marry 4-5 people be allowed to marry them. Who is to say that their view of marriage is wrong?

 

If you are going to get in to the debate that the moral views of the majority should never infringe on anyone, than their can be NO laws preventing ANY TYPE of marriage, EVER.

 

 

ANother issue to your point. Your argument for allowing is that their view of marriage should be allowed over my view of marriage.

 

Okay to go against a Christian's view of morals.

Not okay to go against a homosexual's view of morals.

Why is their view right?

 

It's not about right and wrong. It's about a liberty right protected by our constitution. Your point on polygamists is well taken. I really haven't studied the reasoning around it, so I can't argue on it. All I know is that I've read more cases than I ever thought I would regarding this subject, and I can't agree w/ the court's reasoning.

 

An argument that will be made against polygamists is that their belief does not represent something immutable (a trait that can not be changed), which Ct. stated homosexuality was, and Kentucky seemed to say in 1992 in Wasson. Therefore they will not be given added protection from legislation, which means that all the state would have to show is that they are promoting a legitimate state interest in banning polygamy. That would be arguing that there is child welfare issues found in polygamist families (and I have no idea if there is). However, it is very rare for a court to overturn a law against a group that is non-suspect (i.e. not a discriminated minority.)

It's not about right and wrong. It's about a liberty right protected by our constitution. Your point on polygamists is well taken. I really haven't studied the reasoning around it, so I can't argue on it. All I know is that I've read more cases than I ever thought I would regarding this subject, and I can't agree w/ the court's reasoning.

 

An argument that will be made against polygamists is that their belief does not represent something immutable (a trait that can not be changed), which Ct. stated homosexuality was, and Kentucky seemed to say in 1992 in Wasson. Therefore they will not be given added protection from legislation, which means that all the state would have to show is that they are promoting a legitimate state interest in banning polygamy. That would be arguing that there is child welfare issues found in polygamist families (and I have no idea if there is). However, it is very rare for a court to overturn a law against a group that is non-suspect (i.e. not a discriminated minority.)

 

I am not quite sure I even know what you said.:lol::sssh:

 

Seriously, if homosexualty has been proven to be hereditery or something you are born with, WHICH IT HAS NOT, then I could see your point.

 

BUT even if it is something you are born with, does not mean that it is right to practice it. Some people are born with anger issues that they cannot control. That does not give them the right to attack people because of the anger issue. We, as a society, expect them to learn to control it.

Did anyone see the video of a gay group protesting outside of a white church in Ca? A little old lady looked to be in her 70's, had a cross. They knocked it out of her hands and stomped on it.

 

 

Another issue brought forth on their protest, the biggest group that supported the ban was African-Americans, yet the gay groups have not protested at a single African-American church but at several predominantly white churches.

I am not quite sure I even know what you said.:lol::sssh:

 

Seriously, if homosexualty has been proven to be hereditery or something you are born with, WHICH IT HAS NOT, then I could see your point.

 

BUT even if it is something you are born with, does not mean that it is right to practice it. Some people are born with anger issues that they cannot control. That does not give them the right to attack people because of the anger issue. We, as a society, expect them to learn to control it.

 

Come on, if you are born gay you can stop your sexual urge? If you are born with it, and it is scientifically proven (I know that it hasn't been) you want them to deny their natural urge for intercourse and just start liking the opposite sex??? That's a little far out there, and very unrealistic.

Did anyone see the video of a gay group protesting outside of a white church in Ca? A little old lady looked to be in her 70's, had a cross. They knocked it out of her hands and stomped on it.

 

 

Another issue brought forth on their protest, the biggest group that supported the ban was African-Americans, yet the gay groups have not protested at a single African-American church but at several predominantly white churches.

 

Are we going to use protesting groups as a representative of the whole. Isn't that why people see Pro-Lifers (which I am) as psychos? Also, what is the point of the church/protest thing? By the way, this forum has given me a ton of ideas of what to argue against. I thank you guys.

Man again messing with God's basic idea. They will face him someday.

 

Marriage=Man leaves his parents and unites with a woman who also left her parents and they are Married. Same sex marriage just doesn't fit.

 

If you are Gay, ask God to change your desire and repent so you don't live in torment.

 

I have some verses if someone wants to see them.

Come on, if you are born gay you can stop your sexual urge? If you are born with it, and it is scientifically proven (I know that it hasn't been) you want them to deny their natural urge for intercourse and just start liking the opposite sex??? That's a little far out there, and very unrealistic.

 

How about if it is scientifically proven, as pedophiles claim, that they are born that way. You want them to deny their natural urge for intercourse?

 

And for those that want to ignore my point by saying that I am comparing the two, I am not.

 

I am pointing out that they BOTH make the SAME CLAIMS. Why is one right and one wrong?