Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
#1, I've never said gays can't be married in any church that will marry them, nor have I ever contested their right to attend church. If the church will accept them. But it is not the job of the government to FORCE churches to behave according to the will of a few in government.
That said, the state has no business legalizing their unions. The people have voted against it again and again. We are a republic by the people, and we don't want the state to be involved in homosexual marriage. The only reason we have state marriage licenses is for taxation and population purposes, and if you had asked me...I would have objected from the beginning to having the state involved in ANY marriage. But refusing to vote for a state-issued (non-religious) marriage certificate for homosexual marriages is in no way a violation of anyone's freedom of religion. It's not a religious document. It is a violation of our freedom of religion for the government to force any church to change doctrine or practice.
#2, Religion has nothing to do with the basic argument that abortion is murder. Murder is not subject to religious interpretation. Murder is murder. Some religions believe in the sacrifice of humans. I guess that means they should be able to practice their religion, because to prevent them is a violation of their freedom of religion. Bullshit. You have your freedoms...until they impede upon the rights of someone else. A baby is someone else. Whatever your religion tells you to do, when it extends to murder, it is subject to the law.
#3, Jefferson believed, as has been amply proven, that there is no freedom from tyranny without God. Period. He believed, with the Baptists, that the government should not be involved in religion not because he thought people shouldn't be able to refer to their belief system when making political decisions (just the opposite) but because he didn't want the GOVERNMENT to PREVENT people from adhering to their religion, and because he didn't want the GOVERNMENT to PUNISH or DENY people opportunity to advance based upon their openly practiced religion.
actually, it isClearly if Gays can Marry, Then you should be able to marry 6 wives.
Yeah...that's logical
the government should get the hell out of all marriage
there should be no difference to government if you are married or not, nor how many you choose to marry
its a religious ceremony and under the first amendment to the constitution the government should not be dictating any of it
the thing that makes it the same is its still the government interfering in a religious matteractually, it isYeah...that's logical
the government should get the hell out of all marriage
there should be no difference to government if you are married or not, nor how many you choose to marry
its a religious ceremony and under the first amendment to the constitution the government should not be dictating any of it
I agree that the government should have nothing to do with marriage, however, I don't think its logical that homosexual marriage is the same as polygamy. One is monogamous, and the other isn't. But, if we allow one, you're right, we should allow the other AS LONG AS everyone consents (while not under the influence of drugs or while mentally incapacitated, etc. etc.)
Exactly. The argument that is being made is that the GOVERNMENT should be able to FORCE churches to accept homosexuals as members, and marry them.
Which is exactly why we have separation of church and state. To keep the fucking government out of the churches, and allow people to worship as they please without repercussions.
The left fucking hates it, as they hate all freedom.
You're stating your own opinion as if it's a fact, an accepted stance, and the only belief an "intelligent" person can have.
No, abortion isn't about religion, except to the extent that thou shalt not murder is a biblical precept. Libs keep wanting to alter the meaning of "human" so they can justify the butchery of those who are a burden on society, who think differently than they do, or those they just don't like. Then they claim we are the monsters, because we think all life is precious, and murder is murder, no matter who's getting torn to bits and thrown away.
Essentially what you're saying is that anyone who is in a coma, anyone who suffers from certain mental disorders or disabilities, and babies (and really, when is a baby self-aware? 6 months?) can be destroyed by someone who finds them a burden.
That's murder. You can kibbitz all you like, but that's what it is. It has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with the left justifying population control, eugenics, and ultimately genocide. Poor people and disabled people are bothersome to you, so you think you have the right to eliminate them. And to make it palatable, you tell everyone it's for their own good. That's exactly how Hitler got the Germans to swallow concentration camps and the butchery of Jews (and Gypsies, and Catholics, and Blacks, and Homosexuals).
And I'm a conservative. You'll never get me to acknowledge that the state should take precedence over my religion. The state should have nothing to do with it, and has no place usurping those ceremonies traditionally maintained by churches.
Homosexuals can get married today. There are churches that are happy to marry them. Which means it isn't a religious argument. It's a legal argument. The PEOPLE don't want the states involved in marrying homosexuals. End of story. Though if you all have your way, you'll just kill off all those who don't agree, and bingo bango, you'll have your utopia.