Obama's Gay Marriage Evolution is Offensive to God and America

nope, that's why no such prohibition existed in the law until the 1970's.

irrelevant.

 

what part of the complete absence of the word ONLY do you not understand?

irrelevant. you are wrong, and you should be a man and stop digging your hole. it's been pathetic for months, now it's just tiresome

 

like I said. you've lost repeatedly in federal court.

your ignorance the US judicial process is pathetic. especially having had it pointed out to you so many times.

 

Up until recently, nobody even thought about ssame sex marriages, its like, in 1935 they didnt have laws against email spams.
They just assumed that same sex marriages wouldnt even be considered.
We do know their intention was only man woman marriages because that was the overwhelming attitude of society at large. I guarantee you if we could ask them if they supported man woman marriages only, over 90% would have supported it. If you dont think so, go ask some people who were adults in the 50's.

 

That we didn't think of it then, doesn't mean much. Nobody thought about seat belts or sun burns either. Most of us assumed mixed race marriages wouldn't be considered either.

Marriage laws didn't come into being at one moment and there was no comprehensive plan or all encompassing motive behind them. Marriage laws appeared one by one, over the history of our nation. They appeared when problems occurred or unfairness was observed and folks sought to address each. But you are right, those issues and solutions never considered the couples sex. I don't see why we should start now.​

 

Mixed race marriages? What does that have to do with the topic?
hahahaha, to the rest of your trash talk. It simply isnt true, everything you said.

 

That is exactly why relationship between man and woman require regulation, so we have less children with mother only. That is good and noble reason.

 

Probably those countries are not democratic and free, because they have chosen to regulate something that does not require regulation. For example Denmark prohibits freedom of religion imposing rules on churches and require them to believe that same sex union is a marriage.

 

No it does not, relationship between two people of the same sex is their personal business, there is no valid reason to regulate or license such relationship.

 

Sure, absolutely, but marriage licenses have something to do with relationship between men and woman. Children are result of such relationship, so we have to take care of children. There is no other valid reason to regulate and license any kind of relationship.

 

I suppose you would be including all the Democrat black population who are also Christians and who also believe in God, who vote Democrat to the tune of about 90%+ and who are also very much against gay marriage? Continuing to call this belief the "Christian Right" is quite misleading and WRONG.... because it is NOT the case.

 

This OP and thread is about "gay marriage"....not whether someone is born homosexual or not and not whether or not they should be accepted for who they are. I happen to think most, if not all, are born homosexual, as you describe. But I also know a few homosexuals who are also against gay marriage. They don't see the need and believe it's a kind of "in your face" attitude pushed by some in the community. So, views on this generally have nothing to do with being prejudice. It's about marriage and where the definition came from (the Bible) and what it says and what it means.

Read Genesis 1.27-2 if you want to know where the institution of "marriage" comes from and who it is intended for:

"So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."

—Genesis 1:27 (NKJV)
"And the LORD God said, 'It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.' Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him. And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. And Adam said: 'This is now bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.' Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed."

—Genesis 2:18-25

They were to go forth and procreate by God's design.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1:27&version=NIV

 

Irrelevant. No law prohibitted same sex marriage until the 1970's

 

Then only couples who have procreated should be allowed to marry using you're logic

 

Not sure what any of the above has to do with anything? And same sex unions are of course marriages

 

Same reason as to regulate opposite sex couples

 

Like i said, children have nothing to do wih it. Thats why couples who have no ability/intention of procreating can and do marry

 

My logic is that only those couples who have propensity for procreation should be licensed and regulated, all other couples are self sufficient and their relationship does not affect society.

 

The only reason why relationship between man and woman should be regulated and licensed is possibility that they have children. This reason is not applicable to any other types of couples.

 

Not really as millions of people all over the world believe in God.
Even Obama claims he believes so I guess he is mistaken?

Now if you believe in God and the Bible(his word), then there is no doubt that
gay marriage offends God. If you don't believe in God then you have no future
anyhow and everything goes.

 

IF there were no children involved, there would be no COMPELLING interest in managing the couples life, NONE, ZERO, ZILCH, NULL.


IF there were no children involved, there would be no COMPELLING interest in managing the couples life, NONE, ZERO, ZILCH, NULL.

IF there were no children involved, there would be no COMPELLING interest in managing the couples life, NONE, ZERO, ZILCH, NULL.
IF there were no children involved, there would be no COMPELLING interest in managing the couples life, NONE, ZERO, ZILCH, NULL.
IF there were no children involved, there would be no COMPELLING interest in managing the couples life, NONE, ZERO, ZILCH, NULL.
IF there were no children involved, there would be no COMPELLING interest in managing the couples life, NONE, ZERO, ZILCH, NULL.
IF there were no children involved, there would be no COMPELLING interest in managing the couples life, NONE, ZERO, ZILCH, NULL.
IF there were no children involved, there would be no COMPELLING interest in managing the couples life, NONE, ZERO, ZILCH, NULL.

 

right, so only couples who have procreated should be able to marry.

 

then only couples who have procreated should be allowed to marry.

 

no really, you need to prove the existence of your god if you wish to use it as a reason to deny same sex couples the right to marry.

 

like I said, children have nothing to do with it. that's why couples without the ability/intention to procreate can and do marry.