PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
obviously....the relationship between two men is not 'marriage'.....you want to make it 'marriage'.....you want to make that which is NOT equal, equal.....
APP - Homosexuality Now, Pedophilia Next
- Thread starter DamnYankee
- Start date
obviously....the relationship between two men is not 'marriage'.....you want to make it 'marriage'.....you want to make that which is NOT equal, equal.....
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
The source is a study by Dutch researchers.
Talk about a leap, of course multiple partners makes a marriage unstable.
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
Through your own narrow vision (which no one is forcing you or even suggesting you change). But that imparts an unfairness towards a group of American citizens. And still that would not make anyone 'unequal'.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Solitary = :tantrum:
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
Not always. You know about swingers correct? They're still allowed to marry and I'm certain you see the 'immorality' in that.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
I don't see how that furthers your argument.
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
It shows your morality is subjective and that the 'institution' of marriage is no more harmed by these activities then by gay marriage, multiple partners or not.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
You just said that I would think that swinging was immoral, which it obviously is. Now if you can provide data that shows that swingers are as stable as non-swingers that may help your argument, but you didn't do that.
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
It still proves your morality is subjective and cannot be a sole basis for law.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Every law we have regarding a moral or ethical matter (most of the laws), are directly based on Biblical teachings. Laws against murder and theft, are specifically articulated in the 10 Commandments. It is the basis for not only our laws, but the actual founding of our nation. This is why you are so fucking clueless, you don't even understand the basic premise on which this country was established. It was indeed a "religious" notion that all men are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights! You want to insist that the very founding principle of our nation is unconstitutional, because it isn't secular!
The First Amendments does not say; Congress shall make no law based on anything religious, or have respect for anything non-secular. Sorry, it just doesn't say that, and if your 'interpretations' were accurate, that is precisely how it would read.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
your link about homosexuals didn't prove anything either....it said relationships, not marriage....
next
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
meadowmuffins....it was and is in CA....thus you are wrong....
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
This makes no sense.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
man up and answer it...
if marriage is not a religious institution in this country, why is it you feel you can force your religious views on people and demand they accept your religious views of marriage?
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Actually it states: ""monogamous" relationship", a legitimate comparison.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
now you're just flat out lying, you even directly quoted me, here is the direct quote that you actually cut out from the rest of the post
i specifically said it was immoral....
and then you gave your obtuse and purposefully combative answer, and then i asked if you consider those things moral and said is this correct? and then you gave a flippant cut post to play with. you whine about others insulting, yet your posts display an insulting attitude.
now:
why do you allow these immoral peole to marry, and not gays?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
still not marriage....and obviously not monogamous
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
You believe homosexuality is immoral. I believe it is moral. Thus both are subjective. My version however denies no person anything, as opposed to yours.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Yurt, you do realize you are advocating we pass a law to define marriage based on a sexually deviant behavior? You do realize, once such a law is set in stone, it will establish precedent for any other group of sexual deviants who want the same 'right' to marry, and we will have no choice but to grant their exceptions because of the constitutional guarantee of 'equal protection under the law'.
I have no problem with gay people, and I don't care if they want to live the gay lifestyle... I don't even care if they want to live as 'husband and wife' or have a 'wedding' ceremony. I will even go so far as to say, I don't have a problem with a stable gay couple who have maintained a stable home, adopting children. I think gay couples should be treated the same as married couples in matters of insurance, contracts, etc.
My point of contention is changing the definition of a traditional institution, and basing it on sexual behavior. You open a can of worms you can't ever close. Liberals will point to other countries where gays can marry, but those countries do not have our constitution, and wouldn't be obligated to extend that same consideration to others with an odd sexual preference.