An Alabama Pastor's Epic Speech against Gay Marriage (Please finish drinking your beverage first)

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Marriage laws have nothing to do with faith. We have the right to get married and religion has nothing to do with that.

It has plenty to do with it. Your 'right to marry' does in no way trump our religious freedom. Get that that thick head of yours. Refusing you service at a floral shop, a bakery, a photography studio or whatever else, does not stop you from marrying. Simply take your business elsewhere.

The courts are erroneously stating that the 14th Amendment only protects you in this matter. What about us? Why doesn't it apply to the religious as well? Oh well.

Why did the Mormons lose in court on the polygamy issue? Polygamy is/was integral to their religious beliefs.

Why didn't their religious belief trump those who opposed it?

Because their Religious belief flies in the face of nature, God and the principles that define America. And simply holding 'a' religious belief, does not a valid Religious belief: MAKE.

FYI: That's the same principle that will strike down the attempts of Islam to impart Sharia Law upon those walking upon US SOIL... at least where governance over those on that soil respects American Principle.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Marriage laws have nothing to do with faith. We have the right to get married and religion has nothing to do with that.

It has plenty to do with it. Your 'right to marry' does in no way trump our religious freedom. Get that that thick head of yours. Refusing you service at a floral shop, a bakery, a photography studio or whatever else, does not stop you from marrying. Simply take your business elsewhere.

The courts are erroneously stating that the 14th Amendment only protects you in this matter. What about us? Why doesn't it apply to the religious as well? Oh well.

Why did the Mormons lose in court on the polygamy issue? Polygamy is/was integral to their religious beliefs.

Why didn't their religious belief trump those who opposed it?

Because their Religious belief flies in the face of nature, God and the principles that define America. And simply holding 'a' religious belief, does not a valid Religious belief: MAKE.

FYI: That's the same principle that will strike down the attempts of Islam to impart Sharia Law upon those walking upon US SOIL... at least where governance over those on that soil respects American Principle.

Who appointed you as the arbiter of what is or isn't a religious belief? Are you claiming Mormonism isn't a religion?

How do you know which religious beliefs do or do not fly in the face of nature? or God?

Isn't having religious beliefs in the first place 'flying in the face of nature'? Nature does not evidence the existence of supernatural superior beings.

When did God make his existence known to you? Where is the indisputable evidence from God that there is only one legitimate religion?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Marriage laws have nothing to do with faith. We have the right to get married and religion has nothing to do with that.

It has plenty to do with it. Your 'right to marry' does in no way trump our religious freedom. Get that that thick head of yours. Refusing you service at a floral shop, a bakery, a photography studio or whatever else, does not stop you from marrying. Simply take your business elsewhere.

The courts are erroneously stating that the 14th Amendment only protects you in this matter. What about us? Why doesn't it apply to the religious as well? Oh well.

Why did the Mormons lose in court on the polygamy issue? Polygamy is/was integral to their religious beliefs.

Why didn't their religious belief trump those who opposed it?

Because their Religious belief flies in the face of nature, God and the principles that define America. And simply holding 'a' religious belief, does not a valid Religious belief: MAKE.

FYI: That's the same principle that will strike down the attempts of Islam to impart Sharia Law upon those walking upon US SOIL... at least where governance over those on that soil respects American Principle.

Sharia Law is religious, like it or not. You want it both ways. You want God to reign, but you want Men like yourself to be able to tell us what God is or isn't.

 

[Skylar]

Marriage laws have nothing to do with faith. We have the right to get married and religion has nothing to do with that.

It has plenty to do with it. Your 'right to marry' does in no way trump our religious freedom. Get that that thick head of yours. Refusing you service at a floral shop, a bakery, a photography studio or whatever else, does not stop you from marrying. Simply take your business elsewhere.

The courts are erroneously stating that the 14th Amendment only protects you in this matter. What about us? Why doesn't it apply to the religious as well? Oh well.

Why did the Mormons lose in court on the polygamy issue? Polygamy is/was integral to their religious beliefs.

Why didn't their religious belief trump those who opposed it?

Because their Religious belief flies in the face of nature, God and the principles that define America.

Says who?

And simply holding 'a' religious belief, does not a valid Religious belief: MAKE.

And who decides what a 'valid' religious belief is? God doesn't break ties.

FYI: That's the same principle that will strike down the attempts of Islam to impart Sharia Law upon those walking upon US SOIL... at least where governance over those on that soil respects American Principle.

So 'valid religious belief' should trump US laws. But not 'invalid' religious belief. With apparently you deciding which is which.

Can you get more subjective and relativistic?

 

[Skylar]

Marriage laws have nothing to do with faith. We have the right to get married and religion has nothing to do with that.

It has plenty to do with it. Your 'right to marry' does in no way trump our religious freedom. Get that that thick head of yours. Refusing you service at a floral shop, a bakery, a photography studio or whatever else, does not stop you from marrying. Simply take your business elsewhere.

The courts are erroneously stating that the 14th Amendment only protects you in this matter. What about us? Why doesn't it apply to the religious as well? Oh well.

Why did the Mormons lose in court on the polygamy issue? Polygamy is/was integral to their religious beliefs.

Why didn't their religious belief trump those who opposed it?

Because their Religious belief flies in the face of nature, God and the principles that define America. And simply holding 'a' religious belief, does not a valid Religious belief: MAKE.

FYI: That's the same principle that will strike down the attempts of Islam to impart Sharia Law upon those walking upon US SOIL... at least where governance over those on that soil respects American Principle.

Sharia Law is religious, like it or not. You want it both ways. You want God to reign, but you want Men like yourself to be able to tell us what God is or isn't.

Exactly. God is 'supreme', he speaks for 'god', thus he is supreme.

Its a schtick that's been around since religion was invented.

 

[emilynghiem]

Why did the Mormons lose in court on the polygamy issue? Polygamy is/was integral to their religious beliefs.

Why didn't their religious belief trump those who opposed it?

1. Technically they can still keep arguing to either include their beliefs, or remove marriage altogether from the state
since the policy discriminates
2. Since Christians are generally opposed to Mormons, but many Christians groups including gay Christian churches have legally supported the gay marriage equality, this makes a difference in forming public support toward a consensus on policy that isn't there for Mormons.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Marriage laws have nothing to do with faith. We have the right to get married and religion has nothing to do with that.

It has plenty to do with it. Your 'right to marry' does in no way trump our religious freedom. Get that that thick head of yours. Refusing you service at a floral shop, a bakery, a photography studio or whatever else, does not stop you from marrying. Simply take your business elsewhere.

The courts are erroneously stating that the 14th Amendment only protects you in this matter. What about us? Why doesn't it apply to the religious as well? Oh well.

Why did the Mormons lose in court on the polygamy issue? Polygamy is/was integral to their religious beliefs.

Why didn't their religious belief trump those who opposed it?

Because their Religious belief flies in the face of nature, God and the principles that define America.

Says who?

And simply holding 'a' religious belief, does not a valid Religious belief: MAKE.

And who decides what a 'valid' religious belief is? God doesn't break ties.

FYI: That's the same principle that will strike down the attempts of Islam to impart Sharia Law upon those walking upon US SOIL... at least where governance over those on that soil respects American Principle.

So 'valid religious belief' should trump US laws. But not 'invalid' religious belief. With apparently you deciding which is which.

Can you get more subjective and relativistic?

It's a classic theocratic argument. He wants God to rule, but he wants someone other than God to make the rules.

 

[emilynghiem]

Marriage laws have nothing to do with faith. We have the right to get married and religion has nothing to do with that.

It has plenty to do with it. Your 'right to marry' does in no way trump our religious freedom. Get that that thick head of yours. Refusing you service at a floral shop, a bakery, a photography studio or whatever else, does not stop you from marrying. Simply take your business elsewhere.

The courts are erroneously stating that the 14th Amendment only protects you in this matter. What about us? Why doesn't it apply to the religious as well? Oh well.

Why did the Mormons lose in court on the polygamy issue? Polygamy is/was integral to their religious beliefs.

Why didn't their religious belief trump those who opposed it?

Because their Religious belief flies in the face of nature, God and the principles that define America.

Says who?

And simply holding 'a' religious belief, does not a valid Religious belief: MAKE.

And who decides what a 'valid' religious belief is? God doesn't break ties.

FYI: That's the same principle that will strike down the attempts of Islam to impart Sharia Law upon those walking upon US SOIL... at least where governance over those on that soil respects American Principle.

So 'valid religious belief' should trump US laws. But not 'invalid' religious belief. With apparently you deciding which is which.

Can you get more subjective and relativistic?

Skylar EXACTLY!
That's what is wrong, one group doesn't recognize the other's beliefs as valid and vice versa.
Especially secular and political beliefs are not being "separated from public policy" as people demand with recognized religions.

So this IS a form of discrimination by creed. You are right, there is not an agreed way to determine what is a religious belief.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Homosexuals living together and loving each other does not bother me or any of my friends in the least.

Doesn't bother anyone that I know... me included.

It's the redefinition of marriage that presents a problem. There is NO NEED to redefine it in order to grant equal benefits to same-sex couples. None whatsoever!

Just well said!

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

Such is inappropriate for men who want to playhouse with other men, for those who demand to screw themselves financially by becoming legally obligated to their besty... they can simply form a corporation, assign themselves obligated to one another... then just wait for the penalty to kick in, before they do what they would have done in course... only without at least half of what they otherwise would have had, if they had not been so determined to have been equal.

Civil marriage is whatever the government says it is. You keep babbling about marriage being one man and one woman, and you are wrong every time you say it.

Hi NYcarbineer:
If Atheists can sue over public use of the term God and have that term removed due to objections on religious grounds,
then why can't people sue to have the term Marriage removed due to objections on religious grounds.

My point being, if people cannot agree on the wording without invoking religious bias and conflict,
(such as if they cannot agree that God can mean other things nonreligious like Life, Greater Good, etc. in order to keep that term in public usage) then it can be argued to REMOVE it so the govt does not impose or promote any religious connotation.

People need to AGREE how laws are written, interpreted and enforced that affect their personal lives,
or else keep it out of the state if it is a religious issue.

Personally I believe that any matter touching an issue of religious, political or personal belief should be resolved
by consensus to protect all creeds equally by law. I believe this is best accomplished by reaching agreement among people directly first, then trying to mediate on a state level, and if a consensus can be worked out, then offering that on a national level if other people or states want to adopt writing/wording that is neutral enough to remain free of bias as govt should be.

The same sex marriage issue is doing that.

There's no such thing... .

Ya see scamp, Marriage IS: the joining of one man and one woman.

A demonstration of the where a single example of the male gender; which is to say the male 'sex', and one single example of the female, a demonstration of the gender distinct from the male; which is the say the 'sex' which is distinct from, but which naturally compliments the male 'sex'.

But your 'feelings' as you have presented them HERE... does a FANTASTIC job of proving the SELF-EVIDENT TRUTH which holds that:

The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality: IS DESIGNED AS A MEANS TO
SEPARATE THE CULTURE OF THE UNITED STATES CULTURE
FROM GOD.​

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why did the Mormons lose in court on the polygamy issue? Polygamy is/was integral to their religious beliefs.

Why didn't their religious belief trump those who opposed it?

1. Technically they can still keep arguing to either include their beliefs, or remove marriage altogether from the state
since the policy discriminates
2. Since Christians are generally opposed to Mormons, but many Christians groups including gay Christian churches have legally supported the gay marriage equality, this makes a difference in forming public support toward a consensus on policy that isn't there for Mormons.

Ironically the Mormons have been one of the churches most zealously acting in opposition to same sex marriage.

 

[emilynghiem]

Marriage laws have nothing to do with faith. We have the right to get married and religion has nothing to do with that.

It has plenty to do with it. Your 'right to marry' does in no way trump our religious freedom. Get that that thick head of yours. Refusing you service at a floral shop, a bakery, a photography studio or whatever else, does not stop you from marrying. Simply take your business elsewhere.

The courts are erroneously stating that the 14th Amendment only protects you in this matter. What about us? Why doesn't it apply to the religious as well? Oh well.

Why did the Mormons lose in court on the polygamy issue? Polygamy is/was integral to their religious beliefs.

Why didn't their religious belief trump those who opposed it?

Because their Religious belief flies in the face of nature, God and the principles that define America.

Says who?

And simply holding 'a' religious belief, does not a valid Religious belief: MAKE.

And who decides what a 'valid' religious belief is? God doesn't break ties.

FYI: That's the same principle that will strike down the attempts of Islam to impart Sharia Law upon those walking upon US SOIL... at least where governance over those on that soil respects American Principle.

So 'valid religious belief' should trump US laws. But not 'invalid' religious belief. With apparently you deciding which is which.

Can you get more subjective and relativistic?

It's a classic theocratic argument. He wants God to rule, but he wants someone other than God to make the rules.

It's called consensus. Since we cannot prove such things,
and since we rely on our personal religious and political beliefs,
the standard we end up going by is whether we consent or not and what we consent to.

So in order to include all people's relative beliefs and values, of what we consent to or not,
this means a consensus on subjective policies that affect our personal lives which govt is not supposed to dictate for us.

 

[Skylar]

Ya see scamp, Marriage IS: the joining of one man and one woman.

Says you. Since we invented marriage, it is whatever we decide it is. And in 37 of 50 States we've decided it includes same sex couples as well.

A demonstration of the where a single example of the male gender; which is to say the male 'sex', and one single example of the female, a demonstration of the gender distinct from the male; which is the say the 'sex' which is distinct from, but which naturally compliments the male 'sex'.

There is no marriage in nature. We invented marriage. So it means what we decide it means. And it can serve what purposes we decide it serves. And have as many valid bases as we decide it has.

You disagree? So what. We don't use to define any legal term.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Homosexuals living together and loving each other does not bother me or any of my friends in the least.

Doesn't bother anyone that I know... me included.

It's the redefinition of marriage that presents a problem. There is NO NEED to redefine it in order to grant equal benefits to same-sex couples. None whatsoever!

Just well said!

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

Such is inappropriate for men who want to playhouse with other men, for those who demand to screw themselves financially by becoming legally obligated to their besty... they can simply form a corporation, assign themselves obligated to one another... then just wait for the penalty to kick in, before they do what they would have done in course... only without at least half of what they otherwise would have had, if they had not been so determined to have been equal.

Civil marriage is whatever the government says it is. You keep babbling about marriage being one man and one woman, and you are wrong every time you say it.

Hi NYcarbineer:
If Atheists can sue over public use of the term God and have that term removed due to objections on religious grounds,
then why can't people sue to have the term Marriage removed due to objections on religious grounds.

My point being, if people cannot agree on the wording without invoking religious bias and conflict,
(such as if they cannot agree that God can mean other things nonreligious like Life, Greater Good, etc. in order to keep that term in public usage) then it can be argued to REMOVE it so the govt does not impose or promote any religious connotation.

People need to AGREE how laws are written, interpreted and enforced that affect their personal lives,
or else keep it out of the state if it is a religious issue.

Personally I believe that any matter touching an issue of religious, political or personal belief should be resolved
by consensus to protect all creeds equally by law. I believe this is best accomplished by reaching agreement among people directly first, then trying to mediate on a state level, and if a consensus can be worked out, then offering that on a national level if other people or states want to adopt writing/wording that is neutral enough to remain free of bias as govt should be.

The same sex marriage issue is doing that.

There's no such thing... .

Ya see scamp, Marriage IS: the joining of one man and one woman.

A demonstration of the where a single example of the male gender; which is to say the male 'sex', and one single example of the female, a demonstration of the gender distinct from the male; which is the say the 'sex' which is distinct from, but which naturally compliments the male 'sex'.

But your 'feelings' as you have presented them HERE... does a FANTASTIC job of proving the SELF-EVIDENT TRUTH which holds that:

The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality: IS DESIGNED AS A MEANS TO
SEPARATE THE CULTURE OF THE UNITED STATES CULTURE
FROM GOD.​

Could you quote God, or a God, opposing same sex marriage, and in the process prove beyond a reasonable doubt that such a God actually said it?

I do not take your word for it that God opposes same sex marriage. Why should I?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ya see scamp, Marriage IS: the joining of one man and one woman.

Says you. Since we invented marriage, it is whatever we decide it is. And in 37 of 50 States we've decided it includes same sex couples as well.

A demonstration of the where a single example of the male gender; which is to say the male 'sex', and one single example of the female, a demonstration of the gender distinct from the male; which is the say the 'sex' which is distinct from, but which naturally compliments the male 'sex'.

There is no marriage in nature. We invented marriage. So it means what we decide it means. And it can serve what purposes we decide it serves. And have as many valid bases as we decide it has.

You disagree? So what. We don't use to define any legal term.

We invented civil marriage. In nature de facto marriage has always occurred, but it has never been exclusively one man one woman.

In fact in some primitive societies, men who identified as women were allowed to take the customary roles of women in that society, even including in some to become wives of men.

Nature at work.

 

[emilynghiem]

The same sex marriage issue is doing that.

There's no such thing... .

Ya see scamp, Marriage IS: the joining of one man and one woman.

A demonstration of the where a single example of the male gender; which is to say the male 'sex', and one single example of the female, a demonstration of the gender distinct from the male; which is the say the 'sex' which is distinct from, but which naturally compliments the male 'sex'.

But your 'feelings' as you have presented them HERE... does a FANTASTIC job of proving the SELF-EVIDENT TRUTH which holds that:

The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality: IS DESIGNED AS A MEANS TO
SEPARATE THE CULTURE OF THE UNITED STATES CULTURE
FROM GOD.​

Dear NYcarbineer: You may be able to use "marriage" in civil/secular context and separate that from any religious/church context. But not necessarily so with people who do not make this distinction. Some people's beliefs are that way, that is the way they think. Like how Atheists don't see Life or Nature as God. Not the way their minds work, and some cannot even use that language like "God" without being offended as against their beliefs.

I may not agree with this, but if this is how other people see and believe, the laws should not discriminate against them.
So if we cannot agree, due to religious differences,
then keep the word marriage OUT of the policies, or divide them by party or something people of that state/district agree to.

It may not be a personal or religious issue to us,
but neither is beef or pork to me while it is against the beliefs of Hindus or Muslims.
If a person says that is against their beliefs, they are not required to prove or change this to fit our conveniences.

There is no reason the same accommodations, for both traditional and nontraditional couples,
can't be made through civil unions, contracts and custody agreements in completely secular terms.

Trying to endorse a social institution through the state can arguably be opposed
as outside the role of govt as a political belief. And many libertarian and independent types can argue for that as well.

I think there are ways that people can have their gay marriages recognized legally
without imposing on people of other beliefs.

I will try to devise a proposal through the Texas Democratic Women
and see if we can try a pilot model for resolving both the gay marriage
issue and the ACA mandates by separating these by party. And create
another level of law similar to civil but dealing with Constitutional protections
and ethics, and try to separate jursidiction and funding there.

The public housing and public schools are like pseudo-governmental nonprofits.
And there is an entire network of elected and appointed officials managing those. So why not separate these by party and still maintain the concept of local govt but not imposing on people who believe in private schools, private funding etc and don't want this public stuff on their tab because their religious beliefs are not welcomed there, so why be forced to pay for it if they aren't included. Why not separate, and solve SEVERAL problems at once?

 

[emilynghiem]

Doesn't bother anyone that I know... me included.

Just well said!

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

Such is inappropriate for men who want to playhouse with other men, for those who demand to screw themselves financially by becoming legally obligated to their besty... they can simply form a corporation, assign themselves obligated to one another... then just wait for the penalty to kick in, before they do what they would have done in course... only without at least half of what they otherwise would have had, if they had not been so determined to have been equal.

Civil marriage is whatever the government says it is. You keep babbling about marriage being one man and one woman, and you are wrong every time you say it.

Hi NYcarbineer:
If Atheists can sue over public use of the term God and have that term removed due to objections on religious grounds,
then why can't people sue to have the term Marriage removed due to objections on religious grounds.

My point being, if people cannot agree on the wording without invoking religious bias and conflict,
(such as if they cannot agree that God can mean other things nonreligious like Life, Greater Good, etc. in order to keep that term in public usage) then it can be argued to REMOVE it so the govt does not impose or promote any religious connotation.

People need to AGREE how laws are written, interpreted and enforced that affect their personal lives,
or else keep it out of the state if it is a religious issue.

Personally I believe that any matter touching an issue of religious, political or personal belief should be resolved
by consensus to protect all creeds equally by law. I believe this is best accomplished by reaching agreement among people directly first, then trying to mediate on a state level, and if a consensus can be worked out, then offering that on a national level if other people or states want to adopt writing/wording that is neutral enough to remain free of bias as govt should be.

The same sex marriage issue is doing that.

There's no such thing... .

Ya see scamp, Marriage IS: the joining of one man and one woman.

A demonstration of the where a single example of the male gender; which is to say the male 'sex', and one single example of the female, a demonstration of the gender distinct from the male; which is the say the 'sex' which is distinct from, but which naturally compliments the male 'sex'.

But your 'feelings' as you have presented them HERE... does a FANTASTIC job of proving the SELF-EVIDENT TRUTH which holds that:

The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality: IS DESIGNED AS A MEANS TO
SEPARATE THE CULTURE OF THE UNITED STATES CULTURE
FROM GOD.​

Could you quote God, or a God, opposing same sex marriage, and in the process prove beyond a reasonable doubt that such a God actually said it?

I do not take your word for it that God opposes same sex marriage. Why should I?

NYcarbineer
You don't need to. Did you ask the Atheist to prove that God opposes Atheists in order to justify removing a Cross?
When the Bible can be argued to show where secular gentiles are under natural laws, which arguably come from God?

All that is needed is to show that both beliefs are equally protected by creed.
In order to be Constitutional. So neither can be excluded or imposed. Govt must remain neutral
and accommodate both where nobody has objections on religious grounds that aren't resolved.
thus a consensus is necessary on how these laws are written and applied, especially if it is going to be public.

 

[emilynghiem]

Ya see scamp, Marriage IS: the joining of one man and one woman.

Says you. Since we invented marriage, it is whatever we decide it is. And in 37 of 50 States we've decided it includes same sex couples as well.

A demonstration of the where a single example of the male gender; which is to say the male 'sex', and one single example of the female, a demonstration of the gender distinct from the male; which is the say the 'sex' which is distinct from, but which naturally compliments the male 'sex'.

There is no marriage in nature. We invented marriage. So it means what we decide it means. And it can serve what purposes we decide it serves. And have as many valid bases as we decide it has.

You disagree? So what. We don't use to define any legal term.

We invented civil marriage. In nature de facto marriage has always occurred, but it has never been exclusively one man one woman.

In fact in some primitive societies, men who identified as women were allowed to take the customary roles of women in that society, even including in some to become wives of men.

Nature at work.

Then agree on the laws and wording and you are good to go.

but if Mormons, gays, traditionalists etc. argue these marriage laws are religiously exclusive,
they may have to be removed altogether and replaced with more neutral language
or keep it out of the state totally. so nobody is left out and discriminated against on the basis of creed.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

It's a classic theocratic argument. He wants God to rule, but he wants someone other than God to make the rules.

God rules... period.

That God is allowing you the means to destroy yourself and your culture through separation of your culture from HIS RULES... does not change that.

The evidence is simply irrefutable.

You claim that there is no God and that as a consequence, the 'rules of those who claim to such to be in alignment with God are not any 'better' than the rules set forth by those who have no consideration for God.

But let's look at, just the recent record, shall we?

God says: Keep your penis out of the anus of other me and do not go injecting yourself with illicit drugs, because it reduces your means to make sound choices, thus risking you personal viability and subsequently the health and well being of those around you.

You Say: No thanks... I think I'll do as I want...

And PRESTO! You got THE HIV!

Not a good example ya say?

Ok... Let's try this:

God says: "Those who discipline their lives toward the securing of a home through the sound stewardship of long term debt, shall be rewarded with a 'home of their own'. God calls this "FAIR"!

You say: "THAT'S NOT FAIR, GOD! Everyone deserves a home of their own! And to do that, you go about separating God's rules regarding the viable practices which sustain the industries that provide and service the provision of long term home buying debt, replacing such with your own notion of fairness; a notion which DEVIATES from God's definition of fairness... .

And PRESTO! Catastrophic collapse of the International Financial Markets.

Now... what's interesting to me, is how TO YOU: NONE OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR OWN BEHAVIOR STANDS TO DEMONSTRATE TO YOU >> IF YOUR IDEAS WORK OR NOT!

Now, when a person is incapable of understanding if the consequences of their behavior work or do not work, THAT person is otherwise recognized as IN-FUCKIN'-SANE!

LOL!

But not you idiots... No NO!

"We're not insane... WE'RE PROGRESSIVES!"

Which is to say that you want others to believe that behavior which CLAIMS that it is going to produce GOOD, but which consistently produces BAD, is PROGRESS... because you INTENDED GOOD! As if your intentions in ANY WAY were EVEN RELEVANT to the consequences, LET ALONE EXCUSED YOU FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEM!

So... THAT is why I prefer to recognize the SELF-EVIDENT TRUTH: That it's a spectacularly BAD IDEA to let those whose 'feelings' EXCLUSIVELY result in chaos, calamity and catastrophe, to:

REDEFINE: THE NUCLEUS OF CIVILIZATION! ​

 

[emilynghiem]

Doesn't bother anyone that I know... me included.

Just well said!

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

Such is inappropriate for men who want to playhouse with other men, for those who demand to screw themselves financially by becoming legally obligated to their besty... they can simply form a corporation, assign themselves obligated to one another... then just wait for the penalty to kick in, before they do what they would have done in course... only without at least half of what they otherwise would have had, if they had not been so determined to have been equal.

Civil marriage is whatever the government says it is. You keep babbling about marriage being one man and one woman, and you are wrong every time you say it.

Hi NYcarbineer:
If Atheists can sue over public use of the term God and have that term removed due to objections on religious grounds,
then why can't people sue to have the term Marriage removed due to objections on religious grounds.

My point being, if people cannot agree on the wording without invoking religious bias and conflict,
(such as if they cannot agree that God can mean other things nonreligious like Life, Greater Good, etc. in order to keep that term in public usage) then it can be argued to REMOVE it so the govt does not impose or promote any religious connotation.

People need to AGREE how laws are written, interpreted and enforced that affect their personal lives,
or else keep it out of the state if it is a religious issue.

Personally I believe that any matter touching an issue of religious, political or personal belief should be resolved
by consensus to protect all creeds equally by law. I believe this is best accomplished by reaching agreement among people directly first, then trying to mediate on a state level, and if a consensus can be worked out, then offering that on a national level if other people or states want to adopt writing/wording that is neutral enough to remain free of bias as govt should be.

The same sex marriage issue is doing that.

There's no such thing... .

Ya see scamp, Marriage IS: the joining of one man and one woman.

A demonstration of the where a single example of the male gender; which is to say the male 'sex', and one single example of the female, a demonstration of the gender distinct from the male; which is the say the 'sex' which is distinct from, but which naturally compliments the male 'sex'.

But your 'feelings' as you have presented them HERE... does a FANTASTIC job of proving the SELF-EVIDENT TRUTH which holds that:

The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality: IS DESIGNED AS A MEANS TO
SEPARATE THE CULTURE OF THE UNITED STATES CULTURE
FROM GOD.​

Could you quote God, or a God, opposing same sex marriage, and in the process prove beyond a reasonable doubt that such a God actually said it?

I do not take your word for it that God opposes same sex marriage. Why should I?

P.S. Instead of relying on religion as proof,
it could be proven scientifically that people have changed orientation through healing therapy.
and thus orientation is a behavior that may or may not change.

Then the CHOICE OF BELIEF remains where some people
"believe this is natural" and not a choice, others "believe this is unnatural" and a choice that needs to change.
Both are faith-based and neither side can impose on each other.

Because this is a personal or spiritual matter of belief, I argue it doesn't belong with the state
unless there is a public agreement that doesn't violate the beliefs or consent of people in that state.
Only if people AGREE to forego their beliefs for the public policy is this lawful,
but it cannot be forced by the state or that is unconstitutional to discriminate on the basis of creed.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Ya see scamp, Marriage IS: the joining of one man and one woman.

Says you. Since we invented marriage, it is whatever we decide it is. And in 37 of 50 States we've decided it includes same sex couples as well.

A demonstration of the where a single example of the male gender; which is to say the male 'sex', and one single example of the female, a demonstration of the gender distinct from the male; which is the say the 'sex' which is distinct from, but which naturally compliments the male 'sex'.

There is no marriage in nature. We invented marriage. So it means what we decide it means. And it can serve what purposes we decide it serves. And have as many valid bases as we decide it has.

You disagree? So what. We don't use to define any legal term.

We invented civil marriage. In nature de facto marriage has always occurred, but it has never been exclusively one man one woman.

In fact in some primitive societies, men who identified as women were allowed to take the customary roles of women in that society, even including in some to become wives of men.

Nature at work.

Then agree on the laws and wording and you are good to go.

but if Mormons, gays, traditionalists etc. argue these marriage laws are religiously exclusive,
they may have to be removed altogether and replaced with more neutral language
or keep it out of the state totally. so nobody is left out and discriminated against on the basis of creed.

A sound religion, is a religion which is aligned with the God's law... which is to say: The Laws of Nature in no way reflects so much as SOUNDNESS... let alone a religion. And the citation of such, in no way reflects upon the soundness or viability of 'religion'. Such is in truth: IRRELEVANT, which is to say: SUCH AS NEITHER RELEVANCE TO THE ISSUES OF SOUND HUMAN BEHAVIOR, NOR consequently: RELIGION.

That a "Primitive Tribe" promoted Homosexuality, Polygamy and walked around with huge branches shoved up their rectums.

Now, it should be obvious to everyone, but sadly is not... that we know that such is NOT in alignment with Nature's Law, because we must make reference to these primitive homosexual touting polygamist tribes: IN THE PAST TENSE!

IF such were in keeping with God's Law, we could just point to them and say: "Well the Rectum Branch Cult has been around for 20,000 years and they're a prosperous, peaceful people whose doin' just fine!