I just read the Declaration.

 

If that document can be pulled for being "offensive to large numbers of people" I have to assume that a "Gay-dar" app wouldn't float at all. :lol:

 

FWIW, Jesus... the true Jesus Christ, and His Word have always been "offensive to large numbers of people"... and still are apparently. We are on track to witness the Bible banned as "hate speech" and a new morality based upon majority opinion established as the acceptable "faith".

 

The inmates are steadily taking control of the asylum. We are politically correcting ourselves into the landfill of history.

 

If anyone can read the Manhattan Declaration and specifically quote anything "in context" that is legitimately "hateful" I would greatly appreciate it and confess my error.

Hmmmm...honestly, I don't see a problem with it. However, I also don't see it as a worthy app.

 

Apps are supposed to be worthy?

Absolutely none. Which is why I feel (just my opinion) that to be opposed to it is without question prejudice against homosexuals.

 

Our laws differentiate moral from amoral behavior and have since the beginning of our country, and there is no disputing that the moral base for our system of laws come from Judeo/Christian ethics. This discussion can go so many places. Many people believe that legalizing gay marriage is a step towards repudiating our Judeo/Christian heritage; the same Judeo/Christian value system that may be the single most important factor in the advancement of western culture over non-western. I'm starting to ramble, but I hope you get the point.

What effect does it have on your life if they have a civil union instead? What ill effect does it have on their life?

 

Then you either don't understand or choose to ignore that the vast majority that are against it view marriage as a religious union. It really has nothing to do with prejudice.

 

Many of them don't receive the tax incentives and medical benefits of a married couple. I wrote a huge paper on this in law school that a State Supreme Ct. Justice looked over. It is an analysis of the Defense of Marriage Act and Fundamental Rights as granted by the Constitution...or a combination of Amendments to the Constitution if anyone is bored enough to look it over.

The main thing that it comes down to is that marriage isn't as cut and dry as a religious union. As long as state governments are giving incentives to married couples, while preventing a section of society from getting those benefits, that is unjust. Religious leaders, obviously, are free to decide who can marry under their faith, but the government shouldn't be able to discriminate on the secular side.

To be honest, it's silly to look at marriage as a religious thing. Marriage has been historically promoted by community organizations (whether that is a village, town, city, state or country) as a means of strengthening the society, and preserving that society for future generations through economic, cultural and military power.

Many of them don't receive the tax incentives and medical benefits of a married couple. I wrote a huge paper on this in law school that a State Supreme Ct. Justice looked over. It is an analysis of the Defense of Marriage Act and Fundamental Rights as granted by the Constitution...or a combination of Amendments to the Constitution if anyone is bored enough to look it over.

The main thing that it comes down to is that marriage isn't as cut and dry as a religious union. As long as state governments are giving incentives to married couples, while preventing a section of society from getting those benefits, that is unjust. Religious leaders, obviously, are free to decide who can marry under their faith, but the government shouldn't be able to discriminate on the secular side.

Totally agree with you about the government. I see no reason why the government shouldn't afford a civil union the same incentives as marriage.

To be honest, it's silly to look at marriage as a religious thing. Marriage has been historically promoted by community organizations (whether that is a village, town, city, state or country) as a means of strengthening the society, and preserving that society for future generations through economic, cultural and military power.

Not a bit silly to me.

What effect does it have on your life if they have a civil union instead? What ill effect does it have on their life?

 

Then you either don't understand or choose to ignore that the vast majority that are against it view marriage as a religious union. It really has nothing to do with prejudice.

A civil union would have the same affect on me as same sex marriage, none. What affect would marriage have on you?

Not a bit silly to me.

 

That's because the religious aspect of marriage has been overplayed as far as its role in the development and promotion of the institution of marriage. As I noted before, states (in the historical sense, not the U.S. sense) were more concerned with promoting marriage as a way of strengthening the state than they were about using it to honor God.

A civil union would have the same affect on me as same sex marriage, none. What affect would marriage have on you?

A religious one. I spelled out why I have a problem with it.

That's because the religious aspect of marriage has been overplayed as far as its role in the development and promotion of the institution of marriage. As I noted before, states (in the historical sense, not the U.S. sense) were more concerned with promoting marriage as a way of strengthening the state than they were about using it to honor God.

It hasn't been overplayed to many of us.

I see marriage as a religious union of a man and a women, so it's hard for me to take religion out of it. I also see marriage as a time-honored enduring social institution for a man and a woman to have and raise children. Same sex couples cannot have children, so I prefer they have civil unions instead.

 

A serious question. Whether it's germane to the thread topic, I don't know.

 

Who should be permitted to adopt children?

 

A. Heterosexual couples who can procreate.

2. Heterosexual couples who are not able to procreate.

D. Homosexual couples.

 

All of the above?

All of the above.

A serious question. Whether it's germane to the thread topic, I don't know.

 

Who should be permitted to adopt children?

 

A. Heterosexual couples who can procreate.

2. Heterosexual couples who are not able to procreate.

D. Homosexual couples.

 

All of the above?

All the above and I'm cool with single people who have the necessary means to support a child being allowed to adopt.

If the option is for a child to be a ward of the state, or go to a LOVING home where they will be given all of the support that they need to grow into good people, then I don't care if Martians have the right to adopt. What I can't completely agree or disagree on is whether putting a child in a non-traditional home, no matter how loving, creating an atmosphere that is impossible to adapt to. In my opinion, there isn't enough evidence one way or the other to be completely educated as to which way to lean.