What history book are you talking about? The Bible?!
And your statement above doesn't address the argument that "separate but equal" isn't equal. It just says one man one woman.
- History includes much more than biblical times. In this thing called history.. Marriage has been between one man and one woman..usually regardless of religion.
I think civil unions for the government but marriage is only religious is a great idea. Then no one gets "marriage" rights but everyone gets "civil union rights". That would be equality. But that isn't how it is.
Civil unions aren't recognized the same way marriage is. That's why homosexuals want to get married.
- That's is an opinion. And they are separate but equal. Like a high school diploma vs. GED. Some people may prefer the diploma..but by law they are equal..you can't force people to accept your way of thinking.
No, I'm not saying the government should control the church's at all. So, I'm not a hypocrite. What I am saying is that
if a church doesn't want to marry homosexuals, they won't because homosexuals won't attend that church or apply to get married there. There are church's that will marry homosexuals and that's where homosexuals will get married. Also, if it was law that an institution can't discriminate,
then that institution can't discriminate. Doesn't the Bible tell Christians to follow the law of the land?
- 1) that's what would happen.
2) If it is legal to get married in any church you are ignorant to think no1 will want to purposely marry in an opposing church just to start controversy..after all..that's what it is all about in the first place.
3) So you are okay with taking away the right to freedom of religion...you are forcing the church to go against their religion
What a ridiculous point. C'mon, don't insult my intelligence with idiotic logic like that.
- It can clearly happen. you insult your own intelligence to think it wouldn't.
Good luck with that crossing your finger wishing stuff.
-Like I said, they are't given the same rights in a civil union.
No, they all have the same rights. They choose to get in a Union and limit themselves.
Are you really trying to make an argument with the above remark?!
That's not even a logical argument!
-It is a valid argument. Opportunity cost. Same benefits, different title vs. A days worth of work.
Homsexuality isn't against the law. Polygamy is.
Same sex marriage is against the law... Stop trying.
Like I said, polygamy is illegal. Some Mormons of the Mormon church practice polygamy. Do you think the government shouldn't tell the Mormon church how to run its institution?
Like I said in my last post: incest is illegal. Homosexuality isn't.
-And like I said..same sex marriage is illegal in CA. Some places it isn't. When incest is on the ballot will you support it?
Already addressed this argument.
- Yup, you addressed it by saying it is okay for the state to tell churches who they can and can't marry.
I never said the government should force churches to marry homosexuals. But if it were the law then the church has to follow the law of the land.
- but you said they can. Isn't that against freedom of religion and against separation of church and state??
I served 4 years in the Marine Corps during Desert Storm, so I defended your right to vote. And I didn't say ignorant people aren't allowed to vote,
I just said that they do and in more numbers than those of us who are progressive, critical, rational thinkers.
-1) Grats on your service. I also am enlisted in the military. That doesn't mean I let my ideology suppress my belief in democracy.
2)
So everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant. And everyone who agrees with you is a progressive, critical, rational thinker.
"I'm straight and wanna marry my bud just to get benefits...aw but I can't." - goes both ways...watch Chuck and Larry
