ladiesbballcoach

So, it is fine to discriminate (their word not mine) against a smaller minority of incestual couples but not fine to discriminate (their word not mine) against a minority of homosexual couples. The number of couples is the determining factor then?

Marriage is not one but some legal contracts could be allowed on some issues. But contrary to what is posted on here, I have not heard the argument that civil unions will suffice, they want to be MARRIED! When the NY law was past, I heard plenty say they are marching to the church to be married.

Oh, I do think NBC is trying to express a message of wanting to remove God from things. They barely offered an apology for this while another arm about pees all over themselves apologizing to the President. (as they should have apologized.) One was obviously meant, one was obviously a PR move, nothing more.

Compare the apology NBC did on removing the word God to this apology MSNBC did concerning the President. A couple of hours later, MSNBC issued a statement, saying, “Mark Halperin’s comments this morning were completely inappropriate and unacceptable. We apologize to the President, The White House and all of our viewers. We strive for a high level of discourse and comments like these have no place on our air. Therefore, Mark will be suspended indefinitely from his role as an analyst. The cable outlet also put out a statment from Halperin at the same time, saying, “I completely agree with everything in MSNBC’s statement about my remark. I believe that the step they are taking in response is totally appropriate. Again, I want to offer a heartfelt and profound apology to the President, to my MSNBC colleagues, and to the viewers. My remark was unacceptable, and I deeply regret it.” Now THIS apology, I believe was heartfelt. The one they did for us offended by removing God from the Pledge, not so much.

No.

I said sin which there are multitudes of sin, you narrowed it to stealing. I am thinking there is a lot of stealing that goes on that is never caught. Again, I am discussing sin and you are talking about getting caught by the law and convicted.

Man in one sense did not choose which books to include in the NT. They set a rigid set of guidelines that would guarantee authenticity and truthfulness and THEN looked at each nominated letter/book/manuscript to see if it fit in those guidelines. One was written at a time when there were people who had lived through the events and could refute them.

A good number of today's Bibles go to the original manuscripts to put together a version in whatever language that they are shooing for. So, today's Bibles are translated DIRECTLY from the original manuscripts by a TEAM of people.

I think marriage should be defined as one man and one woman that are not directly related. That excludes everything that does not fit that above definition.

So, you are saying as a society, we are ALLOWED to tell a brother and sister that is gross and wrong to be attracted to each other but we cannot tell two people of the same gender the same thing? That is a really intolerant position to take in what is supposedly a better, more open society.

That is my point, if you can't define marriage as between one man and one woman, there should not be any definition of it and groups of 100 getting married should be allowed. Either define it as the traditional marriage or don't define it. Not some definition that fits who is screaming loudest at present.

So brothers and sisters are not born brothers and sisters? And first off before your read any further I AM NOT COMPARING THE TWO BUT RATHER TO POINT OUT TO ZOOT SOMETHING IN HIS LAST SENTENCE. There is a group of pedophiles out there that are claiming they are born with a natural attraction to kids. In essence they are born that way. Forget what it is called but I am sure someone on here will post it.

Hold on, so we are deciding this on what people think is normal or OK? I thought this was a legality issue of people's rights rather than a moral/ok issue? See the slippery slope.

And do we not have the right to be offended by it? That was the question and somehow those that were offended are being told we are wrong. Reminds me of the Dixie Chicks who exercised the right to free speech by saying they were embarrassed of being American and President Bush (or whatever it was) and then were offended by people who were exercising their right of speech by not buying their regards and booing them. (not talking the crazies who offered death threats) They wanted their free speech but not be held accountable for it by others exercising their free speech.

What possible health reasons for brother and sister to being married? Notice I said married and not reproducing. Cause they can do that whether they are married or not.

And if the Supreme Court rules on it for the nation, like a Roe v Wade case, it won't be. BTW, why is it that two loving adults that happen to be brother and sister can be told no that they cannot be married by an intolerant society?

While some may or may not know who wrote it, I would hazard a guess that almost the same letter could be written by a parent in every community across the state. Cause they all have parents who think their child is getting the short end of the stick.

2nd paragraph is a Pollyanna view. Look at the lawsuits for Muslim women who want to wear the scarves over their face or have no picture on their driver's license. That is just one example. Sure don't see them clamoring for civil unions but rather for the RIGHT TO BE MARRIED!!!!!!!!! Didn't one of the lawyers on here post 2-3 years ago that legally it can be setup TODAY for them to have all the rights they are wanting without it being classified as a civil union/marriage/or whatever politically correct term you want to use?

Why can 3 or more people who are in love and are adults be denied the right to a civil union? BTW, I do not believe this movement will be accepting of the term civil unions but rather want to be MARRIED!!!!!!!!! I do not believe it is too hard for someone to start their own church in this country and then begin marrying people in a religious institute. Heck didn't Southeast in Louisville begin in someone's basement and now has 20,000 or so in their membership.

Post 82

Simple. Why can 3 people who are in love and are adults be denied the right to be married?

Obviously, I disagree with their view of what would be best for our country.

It was an apology in name only. By no means do I believe they meant it.

For the sake of argument, let's say you cannot define marriage as between man and woman and deny two people of the same sex those rights. Then is there any legal standing to deny the rights of a group of 3-4-50 to be married? Why would the rights of marriage end at only 2?

And turning to these quick fixes like casinos, legalizing drugs, lotteries, etc etc, means less likely the politicians have to be serious and fix the problem of overspending.