It is my view a marriage between a man and a woman is a sacred act that should not be expanded upon. I don't believe that makes me intolerant of homosexuals.

 

Your view is religious and I respect that. I don't believe in it either, however, it is their right under our Constitution to get married. We can't go picking and choosing whose rights we'll respect and whose we won't. It doesn't work that way.

Your view is religious and I respect that. I don't believe in it either, however, it is their right under our Constitution to get married. We can't go picking and choosing whose rights we'll respect and whose we won't. It doesn't work that way.

 

I think it does work the way it is. I also think thats what the American people want. Why make a change like this that is not supported by the people?

Part I. A child tax credit, but why? That would give incentive to people to have as many kids as they can. Isn't that already part of the problem with welfare?

 

Part II.

1. You would not be discriminated against if the law is equal across the board. If the law said, nobody can get married, then homosexuals would have no gripe.

 

2. Here is why incest will survive an attack on Constitutional grounds.

It does not violate anyone's equal protection rights because incest is outlawed against men and women. That's the difference, and it is a major one.

I know that everyone's counter argument is that, well, the law today is the same against men and women, noone can marry someone of the same sex.

 

The answer to that is, and once it is proven it will totally turn this whole thing on its ear, state courts are starting to recognize that sexual orientation is ingrained in the person. Don't take my word for it read Commonwealth v. Wasson and go to the end of the Court's opinion and remember, the Kentucky Supreme Court wrote that 16 years ago.

 

Same sex sodomy used to be against the law that was changed.

 

Who's to say the incest laws can't changed?

 

What happens when someone proves that pedophilia is ingrained?

 

Please don't say it can't happen because I'm sure there were those that said teh same thing about homosexuality 50 years ago.

Same sex sodomy used to be against the law that was changed.

 

Who's to say the incest laws can't changed?

 

What happens when someone proves that pedophilia is ingrained?

 

Please don't say it can't happen because I'm sure there were those that said teh same thing about homosexuality 50 years ago.

 

I didn't say that it couldn't happen, I said that I didn't see it happening. Incest b/n male and female has the possibility of creating children w/ an assortment of health issues. That alone creates enough of a legitimate state interest that it will not be condoned. Pedophilia concerns minor children, they will always be protected. That's why I don't see it happening.

A child tax credit, but why? That would give incentive to people to have as many kids as they can. Isn't that already part of the problem with welfare?

.

Because children represent future tax revenue so the state has a reason to encourage pro-creation.

1. You would not be discriminated against if the law is equal across the board. If the law said, nobody can get married, then homosexuals would have no gripe.

 

2. Here is why incest will survive an attack on Constitutional grounds.

It does not violate anyone's equal protection rights because incest is outlawed against men and women. That's the difference, and it is a major one.

I know that everyone's counter argument is that, well, the law today is the same against men and women, noone can marry someone of the same sex.

 

The answer to that is, and once it is proven it will totally turn this whole thing on its ear, state courts are starting to recognize that sexual orientation is ingrained in the person. Don't take my word for it read Commonwealth v. Wasson and go to the end of the Court's opinion and remember, the Kentucky Supreme Court wrote that 16 years ago.

 

It boils down to the fact that I don't believe that homosexuality is genetic.

Because children represent future tax revenue so the state has a reason to encourage pro-creation.

 

 

It boils down to the fact that I don't believe that homosexuality is genetic.

 

That's the crux of the issue. You are definitely not in the minority on that.

We went over this in the other thread- what does government have to do with marriage, which is a religious institution in itself? Marriages in general should not be recognized civilly.

 

NAMBLA is a bad example. What about two consenting brothers? Is it their right to get married?

I disagree, marriage is not just a religious institution. It is a committment between two people. To me it has nothing to do with government or religion.

 

Let me ask you this, can two atheist be married?

It is my view a marriage between a man and a woman is a sacred act that should not be expanded upon. I don't believe that makes me intolerant of homosexuals.

It's so sacred that divorce rate is at about 50%.

Obviously you do not believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God as I do. Since you do not believe this we will never have any common ground---it is difficult to even debate on an issue when you don't believe the Bible is the standard. You are off base in my opinion and we will have to agree to disagree because I refuse to blatantly ignore scripture.

 

i do believe the Bible to be the INSPIRED word of God, and I take it very seriously. What do you do with all of those other Levitical laws. You apparently don't take it very seriously since you have previously dismissed the law against wearing clothing made of two different threads (garments) with humor. The law is there. Do you not take it seriously?

Same sex sodomy used to be against the law that was changed.

 

Who's to say the incest laws can't changed?

 

What happens when someone proves that pedophilia is ingrained?

 

Please don't say it can't happen because I'm sure there were those that said teh same thing about homosexuality 50 years ago.

I am not sure I would say it is ingrained but it is definitely a defect (I guess is the best way I can put it). I think pedophiles should be locked up for the rest of their lives as they have an incurable "sickness" that is a threat to others. I feel that true homosexuals also have a "defect" that is incurable but is not a threat to others.

You cannot love anyone by denying them equal rights - period. That is not love, it is the furthest thing from it.

 

If we are going to play the old testament thing . . .

 

With a close reading of the books of Exodus, Deuteronomy, and Leviticus we see that we must kill people for worshipping foreign gods, working on the sabbath and for adultery. We must kill our kids for talking back to us. When we vanquish a foe in battle we must kill all of their women and children. We must bash the heads of children against the rocks, if they are heathen.

 

If we continue with the cultural trapping of the old and some of the new testament, then slavery is acceptable, and we can even sell our daughters into slavery.

 

Just for arguments sake, I don't think there is any historical evidence of a Sodom or Gomorrha.

 

Don't quote the good Lord's scripture if you don't believe what it says.

Ace, try reading Leviticus 18:22-30. Lying with mankind as with womankind is an abomination. That pretty much says the Lord HATES this sin . . . as he does ALL sin. He would not have given His Only Son to be the propitiation for us if sin was something the Lord did not abhor. Our nation will be judged just as Sodom and Gomorrah were judged if we condone this practice.

Leviticus also says that swine, shellfish, rabbits are an abomination and shouldn't be eaten.

 

What are your thougths on bacon, lobster, or fried bunny?

I did not see any special rights listed, only those that are guaranteed to other loving partners who want a recognized union.

If we're talking marriage, it's a special right since a marriage is defined as being between a man and a women. A civil union I have no problem with.

No, we're not talking about special rights at all. We're granting them added protection so that they have the same access to the same rights that we have.

Examples?

Don't quote the good Lord's scripture if you don't believe what it says.

 

So you can't reference something if you don't believe it? Can I not make a reference to Mein Kampf when teaching because I don't believe in it?